Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Totally Not OEP]

No, because they never came even close to building one.
The Germans never considered nuclear weapons to be a priority, and offing their Jewish scientists really put a crimp in their plans

The Germans were way behind, even with more resources it is highly unlikely they would catch up in time.

Because they had to deal with what was -at the point making a nuke became a reality- an undefeatable enemy. Without lend-lease and other stuff, the Germans might have pushed the Soviets back enough to create a stalemate and get to working on the nuke. Then again, it is true that they were ridiculously behind in the research.

Without Lend Lease the Soviet war machine would've collapsed in the Fall of 1942, maybe 1943 at the latest. As for their nuclear project, it was keeping pace with Allied developments until 1940 and very easily could've shot ahead in the 1939-1941 timeframe; it's sheer luck it didnt.

[Totally Not OEP]

I talk about "All Mexico" a lot, and I realized I have never really laid out the historical basis for it here. Thought I'd rectify that, especially given how often we get involved on historical debates.

Vice President George Dallas, Secretary of the Treasury Robert Walker, and Secretary of State James Buchanan were all in favor of All Mexico. President Polk according to several contemporary sources and modern research was also likely privately in favor of it as well. More importantly, perhaps, is that a large and growing faction in the Senate, increasingly dominant in the Northern states and having split the South, was also in favor of annexing Mexico.

The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 by John D. P. Fuller, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review Vol. 21, No. 1 (Jun., 1934), pp. 31-48

In the Congress which assembled in December, 1847, the question of the acquisition of all Mexico appeared in the open for the first time. Among those who may definitely be numbered with the expansionists were Senators Dickinson and Dix of New York, Hannegan of Indiana, Cass of Michigan, Allen of Ohio, Breese and Douglas, of Illinois, Atchison of Missouri, Foote and Davis of Mississippi, and Houston and Rusk of Texas. The leadership in the fight, against imperialism fell not to the anti-slavery element but to pro-slavery Democrats. On December 15, Calhoun in the Senate and Holmes in the House introduced resolutions opposing the acquisition of Mexico. Other pro-slavery Democrats, Butler of South Carolina, and Meade and Hunter of Virginia, also registered their opposition.

In the Congress which assembled in December, 1847, the question of the acquisition of all Mexico appeared in the open for the first time. Among those who may definitely be numbered with the expansionists were Senators Dickinson and Dix of New York, Hannegan of Indiana, Cass of Michigan, Allen of Ohio, Breese and Douglas, of Illinois, Atchison of Missouri, Foote and Davis of Mississippi, and Houston and Rusk of Texas. The leadership in the fight, against imperialism fell not to the anti-slavery element but to pro-slavery Democrats. On December 15, Calhoun in the Senate and Holmes in the House introduced resolutions opposing the acquisition of Mexico. Other pro-slavery Democrats, Butler of South Carolina, and Meade and Hunter of Virginia, also registered their opposition.

Between October, 1847, and the following February the theme of the story underwent considerable alteration. By the latter date, as noted above, the National Era was advocating the absorption of Mexico, insisting that it would be free territory, and citing along with other evidence, Calhoun's opposition to annexation as proof that the anti-slavery interests had nothing to fear from extensive territorial acquisitions. In other words, the National Era was convinced that if there had been a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to acquire all Mexico, it could not realize its ends even though the whole country were annexed. This conviction seems to have come largely as a result of the propaganda, which was streaming from the northern expansionist press and the opposition of Calhoun.The editor probably reasoned that since Calhoun was opposing absorption the expansionists at the North must be correct. If the main body of the anti-slavery forces could be converted to this point of view, the movement for absorption which was growing rapidly at the time would doubtless become very strong indeed.

Care should be taken not to exaggerate the anti-slavery sentiment for all Mexico. It is evident that some such sentiment did exist, but there was not sufficient time for it to develop to significant proportions. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had already been signed in Mexico when the National Era took up the cry of all Mexico with or without the Wilmot Proviso. In a short while the war was over and whatever anti-slavery sentiment there was for all Mexico collapsed along with the general expansion movement. Had the war continued several months longer it is not improbable that increasing numbers from the anti-slavery camp would have joined forces with those who were demanding the acquisition of Mexico. Their action would have been based on the assumption that they were undermining the position of the pro slavery forces. It was, not to be expected that those abolitionists, and there were undoubtedly some, who were using the bogey of "extension of slavery" to cover up other reasons for opposition to annexation, would have ever become convinced of the error of their ways. They would hold on to their pet theory to the bitter end.

To summarize briefly what seem to be the conclusions to be drawn from this study, it might be said that the chief support for the absorption of Mexico came from the North and West and from those whose pro-slavery or anti-slavery bias was not a prime consideration. In quarters where the attitude toward slavery was all-important there was, contrary to the accepted view, a "pro-slavery conspiracy" to prevent the acquisition of all Mexico and the beginnings of an "anti-slavery conspiracy" to secure all the territory in the Southwest that happened to be available. Behind both these movements was a belief that expansion would prove injurious to the slavery interest. Had the war continued much longer the two movements, would probably have developed strength and have become more easily discernible. Lack of time for expansionist sentiment to develop was the chief cause of this country's, failure to annex Mexico in 1848. Even as it was, however, there might have been sufficient demand for annexation in February and March, 1848, to have wrecked the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had it not been for the opposition of pro-slavery Democrats led by Calhoun. Their attitude divided the party committed to expansion in the presence of a unified opposition. Whatever the motives which may be attributed to Calhoun and his friends, the fact remains that those who feel that the absorption of Mexico in 1848 would have meant permanent injury to the best interests of the United States, should be extremely grateful to those slaveholders. To them not a little credit is due for the fact that Mexico is to-day an independent nation.

I'd also include The United States and Mexico, 1847-1848 by Edward G. Bourne in the The American Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 3 (Apr., 1900), pp. 491-502 as he largely came to the same conclusions as this aforementioned work did.

The issue of race as a complicating factor to annexation is rather overblown, I think, as the situation at the time was far different than currently thought of. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans, even going as far as to write poetry on such. These sentiments did not stop at rhetoric, however, as such inter-marriages were actually common in the parts of the Mexican cession that had existing, sufficiently large populations and were, apparently, considered respectable. Essentially, everyone outside of Calhoun's Pro-Slavery faction didn't really care and it was pretty well understood Calhoun's stance was born out of fears of additional free states entering the Union as opposed to his rhetorical concerns of a threat to the WASP ruling elite of the United States.

As far as Mexican sentiment on the issue, the Federalists, one of the two major Pre-War factions in Mexico, were in favor of annexation:


Winfield Scott also suggested this in his own correspondence:

[34] However, two years later, after the treaty of peace was signed at Guadaloupe on Feb. 2, 1848, and sixteen days later, after he was superceded in the command of the army by Butler, he could write, "Two fifths of the Mexican population, including more than half of the Congress, were desirous of annexation to the US, and, as a stepping stone, wished to make me president ad interim.'"

The United States Army in Mexico City, by Edward S. Wallace (Military Affairs, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Autumn, 1949), pp. 158-166) also states a desire for annexation among the well off of Mexico City, and goes into detail about the relationships cultivated between American soldiers and Mexican civilians.

Obviously much would change because of this. irst and foremost in my mind is that the Civil War is likely averted, as the Missouri Compromise line can be easily extended to the Pacific with minimal fuss. Now, IOTL, both the Abolitionists and the Planters expected that slavery would fail to take root in Mexico but I'm not so sure. The more populated regions definitely won't see such occur, but the Northern tier is well suited to it:



So firm slave states in what IOTL became Northern Mexico as well as a nominal slave state in the form of New Mexico and another solid one in IOTL SoCal (likely with Baja attached). Slavery could expand into the rest of Mexico but given the population on the ground and the limited number of slaves in the United States, I see this unlikely. This does not mean, however, that all of Mexico could not be firmly attached to Southern interests:

Rethinking the Coming of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise by Gary J. Kornblith, Journal of American History (Volume 90, No. 1, June 2003):

"Yet without the Civil War, it seems highly unlikely that the states of the border South would have acted to abolish slavery anytime soon. Antislavery forces were growing weaker, not stronger, in the region at midcentury. In 1851 Cassius Clay, a gradualist, lost his bid for the governorship of Kentucky by an overwhelming margin. "Even in Delaware," Freehling acknowledged, 'where over fifteen thousand slaves in 1790 had shrunk to under two thousand in 1860, slaveholders resisted final emancipation"--and they did so successfully until 1865. Perhaps most revealing of all was President Lincoln's failure to persuade border South congressmen to support gradual, compensated emancipation. Had the United States followed the Brazilian path to abolition, the South's peculiar institution would almost surely have persisted beyond 1900."

This would assuage Southern fears about retaining power in the Senate, as well as likely convince Southern Whigs, who were the decisive vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, to never support such a thing given the Compromise of 1850 would largely settle the issue. Speaking of the Whigs, without the aforementioned Bill they likely remain around and thus abort the Republican Party without the Bill to engender Northern anger like it did IOTL. Thus, sectional issues are largely resolved by the start of the 1850s, with the North free to settle the West and the South free to do whatever it may so desire in Mexico, both free of worry of the other intervening in their own affairs.

It's truly hard to conceive of an America without the experience of the Civil War, as that fundamentally reshaped the United States. Not only was slavery ended decades before it could be naturally ended with all that entails, it further resulted in a very clear shift in American perceptions best reflected in the the US was no longer referred to in a plural sense but in a singular one. Further, the swath of Civil War Amendments, in particular the 14th, forever changed conceptions of American law and further led to a whole host of political changes that continue to this day.

For some more specific examples of changes, one that immediately leaps to me is that the Vicksburg to San Diego railway gets built. The route was actually considered easier to build, which motivated the Gadsen purchase IOTL and the lack of a need to do it in this ATL is certainly a boon for it as well as the fact the center of the U.S. has shifted significantly South. Such would result in San Diego becoming the premier West Coast city while San Francisco and Los Angeles would ultimately die out. Vicksburg and New Orleans would also grow into a greater importance because with the rail connections West starting there and the lack of a Civil War to divert barge traffic onto lateral rail, the commerce of the Midwest will continue to come downriver to them. This would also likely lead to greater rail developments in the Deep South, likely fostering the early development of Birmingham in the 1850s. Indirectly it'd also keep the Midwest more aligned with Southern interests going forward as well.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

>TFW a simple post recognizing today as VE Day has spiraled out of control into a multi-post cancer debating who did the most to destroy the Axis powers and the merits of whether or not it would've been better to have not fought the Nazis & Co. altogether

Never change, NSG. Never change.

To be fair, you've literally started fights with me for saying Appalachians fought hard in the Civil War and for calling you Torrocca. Pointless arguments are literally a staple of NSG.

When I made the original post, I just wanted to share my enthusiasm for V-E Day with everyone here; I must admit that I'm somewhat disheartened by how posts made in a spirit of good cheer can spiral into a figurative pissing match.

As to the "[justly and peacefully, hopefully] annex Mexico" notion, I agree with OEP on this subject, due to my fervent and perhaps somewhat optimistic belief that (in layman's terms) we're all in this together. Gosh, I despise the High School Musical films, btw.

[Napkizemlja]

The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans[/url]

Let's be honest OEP this is the part you support the most. No shade, I fully understand.

[Totally Not OEP]

The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans[/url]

Let's be honest OEP this is the part you support the most. No shade, I fully understand.

Time to remove you from the Discord.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Let's be honest OEP this is the part you support the most. No shade, I fully understand.

Time to remove you from the Discord.

There's a Discord? May I please have a link, if you don't mind?

[Napkizemlja]

Let's be honest OEP this is the part you support the most. No shade, I fully understand.

Time to remove you from the Discord.

Embrace your inner Flashman, OEP.

[Salus Maior]

Because they had to deal with what was -at the point making a nuke became a reality- an undefeatable enemy. Without lend-lease and other stuff, the Germans might have pushed the Soviets back enough to create a stalemate and get to working on the nuke. Then again, it is true that they were ridiculously behind in the research.

Don't forget we literally blew up their main research facility.

Well, it wasn't their main research facility. It was where heavy water (an essentially component in A-bomb research) was being manufactured, and it really only set them back.

But Sabaton did do a song about it.

[Totally Not OEP]

I mean, technically that would be really really unlikely. With Europe completely in German hands and without a war to deal with, they would probably have made their own nukes by the point American nukes became operational.

No, because they never came even close to building one.
The Germans never considered nuclear weapons to be a priority, and offing their Jewish scientists really put a crimp in their plans

The Germans were way behind, even with more resources it is highly unlikely they would catch up in time.

Einstein's role in the atomic project was honestly not that important, nor even really all that major. His biggest role was his letter to FDR but even that is somewhat reduced by the knowledge it took Mark Oliphant's 1941 trip to get the Americans to actually focus on a bomb and to actually begin making a serious effort of it overall. Werner von Heisenberg, meanwhile, was considered the foremost expert on nuclear matters prior to the outbreak of the conflict and such was his reputation that the Allies devised plans to kidnap in an effort to sabotage the German project. As it was anyway, up until about 1941 the Germans were keeping pace with the Allies in progress until two major errors occurred:

- Heisenberg dismissed graphite as a moderator, and a pretty poorly conducted follow on test by other scientists supported this assertion. This led to the decision of using Heavy Water which, while a better moderator than graphite, was outrageously expensive comparatively and pretty much solely dependent on facilities in Norway that were sabotaged in 1943.
- They failed to come up with the proper critical mass theory, overestimating how much uranium was needed.

Both of these mistakes are easily understandable and could've went the other way, as the exact same issues plagued the American project into 1941. Indeed, specifically on the matter of critical mass theory some others associated with the German project did have the right idea during the 1940-1941 period and Heisenberg, along with other captured German scientists, were able to come up with the formula needed in August of 1945 solely go off what was being said on the radio about the atomic bombings of Japan.

[Hindu Mahasabha]

Glad to see that pro-right thread exists .Afterall majority of the leftists call every rightist a Fascist whom they don't like.

[Hanafuridake]

The issue of race as a complicating factor to annexation is rather overblown, I think, as the situation at the time was far different than currently thought of. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans, even going as far as to write poetry on such.

Well that's just.... extremely repulsive.

[Totally Not OEP]

The issue of race as a complicating factor to annexation is rather overblown, I think, as the situation at the time was far different than currently thought of. The media at the time propagated the idea of romance between American men and Mexican women as a means of assimilating the Mexicans, even going as far as to write poetry on such.

Well that's just.... extremely repulsive.

Best as I can tell in my research, it was the American version of Blanqueamiento; basically they were encouraging American men to settle down in the new territories and intermarry. In the regions that did get annexed historically, such intermarriages were actually pretty common. They weren't encouraging rape, if that's what you were thinking they meant.

[Hanafuridake]

Well that's just.... extremely repulsive.

Best as I can tell in my research, it was the American version of Blanqueamiento; basically they were encouraging American men to settle down in the new territories and intermarry. In the regions that did get annexed historically, such intermarriages were actually pretty common. They weren't encouraging rape, if that's what you were thinking they meant.

It's not that I disagree with the concept of assimilation-through-intermarriage, but in this case, it seems like the Mexican men were to be limited from reproduction while their daughters and sisters would be married to foreigners who viewed them as racially inferior and needing to be genetically colonized.

[Totally Not OEP]

Best as I can tell in my research, it was the American version of Blanqueamiento; basically they were encouraging American men to settle down in the new territories and intermarry. In the regions that did get annexed historically, such intermarriages were actually pretty common. They weren't encouraging rape, if that's what you were thinking they meant.

It's not that I disagree with the concept of assimilation-through-intermarriage, but in this case, it seems like the Mexican men were to be limited from reproduction while their daughters and sisters would be married to foreigners who viewed them as racially inferior and needing to be genetically colonized.

Like most conquests in history, but I disgress.

Honestly though it was more of the former (assimilation through intermarriage) than the latter. No laws or forced marriages were ever suggested, from what I can tell, and what we saw historically was the gist of what they were getting at. Interesting factoid is there are towns in the Rio Grande Valley down in Texas that literally saw their White populations disappear because of this; they intermixed to the point the towns are now Hispanic, albeit many of a lighter hue.

[Novus America]

No, because they never came even close to building one.
The Germans never considered nuclear weapons to be a priority, and offing their Jewish scientists really put a crimp in their plans

The Germans were way behind, even with more resources it is highly unlikely they would catch up in time.

Einstein's role in the atomic project was honestly not that important, nor even really all that major. His biggest role was his letter to FDR but even that is somewhat reduced by the knowledge it took Mark Oliphant's 1941 trip to get the Americans to actually focus on a bomb and to actually begin making a serious effort of it overall. Werner von Heisenberg, meanwhile, was considered the foremost expert on nuclear matters prior to the outbreak of the conflict and such was his reputation that the Allies devised plans to kidnap in an effort to sabotage the German project. As it was anyway, up until about 1941 the Germans were keeping pace with the Allies in progress until two major errors occurred:

- Heisenberg dismissed graphite as a moderator, and a pretty poorly conducted follow on test by other scientists supported this assertion. This led to the decision of using Heavy Water which, while a better moderator than graphite, was outrageously expensive comparatively and pretty much solely dependent on facilities in Norway that were sabotaged in 1943.
- They failed to come up with the proper critical mass theory, overestimating how much uranium was needed.

Both of these mistakes are easily understandable and could've went the other way, as the exact same issues plagued the American project into 1941. Indeed, specifically on the matter of critical mass theory some others associated with the German project did have the right idea during the 1940-1941 period and Heisenberg, along with other captured German scientists, were able to come up with the formula needed in August of 1945 solely go off what was being said on the radio about the atomic bombings of Japan.

Einstein’s role is grossly exaggerated, although his advocacy helped get the project political support.

But he was not the only German Jew to flee to the US.
Hans Bethe, James Franck and Dieter Gruen were also Jewish refugees of the Nazi regime.
From the British contingent Rudolf Peierls was a German refugee.

There were other Jewish refugees; many from other parts of Europe as well.
Edward Teller was from Hungary. And of course though not a refugee Oppenheimer was Jewish.

And the problems with the German program were more than theoretical.
It was not well organized, was politicized and did not receive nearly enough resources.
Even after getting the details of how to build the bomb it to the Soviets 4 years to actually do so.

Both the US and Soviets built city sized complexes to do the work.
The Manhattan project got nearly unlimited resources.
The Germans never invested nearly enough.
Looking at the absurd cost and complexity they decided it was not going make a soon enough impact to justify the cost, whereas the US put in crazy amounts of money and personnel to speed up the process.

And sure we hit the Norwegian plant. We also leveled the Oranienburg uranium plant with B-17s.
We also could and did attack major German infrastructure for their project.

While they could not bomb Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos.

[Novus America]

It's not that I disagree with the concept of assimilation-through-intermarriage, but in this case, it seems like the Mexican men were to be limited from reproduction while their daughters and sisters would be married to foreigners who viewed them as racially inferior and needing to be genetically colonized.

Like most conquests in history, but I disgress.

Honestly though it was more of the former (assimilation through intermarriage) than the latter. No laws or forced marriages were ever suggested, from what I can tell, and what we saw historically was the gist of what they were getting at. Interesting factoid is there are towns in the Rio Grande Valley down in Texas that literally saw their White populations disappear because of this; they intermixed to the point the towns are now Hispanic, albeit many of a lighter hue.

Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive. Hispanic is not a race.
Mexicans are heavily mixed with Amerindian/Native American but the one drop principle was not applied to Native Americans.

In Calhoun’s speech he referred to Mexicans as mixed and “Indian” not as Hispanic.

But yes, unfortunately slavery and the fight over it seriously held back American expansion.

[Totally Not OEP]

Like most conquests in history, but I disgress.

Honestly though it was more of the former (assimilation through intermarriage) than the latter. No laws or forced marriages were ever suggested, from what I can tell, and what we saw historically was the gist of what they were getting at. Interesting factoid is there are towns in the Rio Grande Valley down in Texas that literally saw their White populations disappear because of this; they intermixed to the point the towns are now Hispanic, albeit many of a lighter hue.

Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive. Hispanic is not a race.
Mexicans are heavily mixed with Amerindian/Native American but the one drop principle was not applied to Native Americans.

In Calhoun’s speech he referred to Mexicans as mixed and “Indian” not as Hispanic.

But yes, unfortunately slavery and the fight over it seriously held back American expansion.

Calhoun's speech that you refer to was well understood to be a transparent ploy to prevent "All Mexico" by appealing to racial feelings. Outside of the Calhoun partisans in the Atlantic/Eastern South, it didn't find much purchase; a strange occurrence, as it resulted in Jeff Davis being on the same side as New England Abolitionists.

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

I do not believe it's possible. A better question would be, do you believe it's desirable? And why or why not?

[Novus America]

Hispanic and white are not mutually exclusive. Hispanic is not a race.
Mexicans are heavily mixed with Amerindian/Native American but the one drop principle was not applied to Native Americans.

In Calhoun’s speech he referred to Mexicans as mixed and “Indian” not as Hispanic.

But yes, unfortunately slavery and the fight over it seriously held back American expansion.

Calhoun's speech that you refer to was well understood to be a transparent ploy to prevent "All Mexico" by appealing to racial feelings. Outside of the Calhoun partisans in the Atlantic/Eastern South, it didn't find much purchase; a strange occurrence, as it resulted in Jeff Davis being on the same side as New England Abolitionists.

True, Calhoun was lying scumbag. Was also a racist asshole too.
Being a lying scumbag exploiting racism and being racist asshole are not mutually exclusive.

I am sure he probably really hated Native Americans too.
Not just for political purposes.

Sure he alone did not kill all Mexico. But it unfortunately failed, and he did his best to help it fail.

[Totally Not OEP]

Einstein's role in the atomic project was honestly not that important, nor even really all that major. His biggest role was his letter to FDR but even that is somewhat reduced by the knowledge it took Mark Oliphant's 1941 trip to get the Americans to actually focus on a bomb and to actually begin making a serious effort of it overall. Werner von Heisenberg, meanwhile, was considered the foremost expert on nuclear matters prior to the outbreak of the conflict and such was his reputation that the Allies devised plans to kidnap in an effort to sabotage the German project. As it was anyway, up until about 1941 the Germans were keeping pace with the Allies in progress until two major errors occurred:

- Heisenberg dismissed graphite as a moderator, and a pretty poorly conducted follow on test by other scientists supported this assertion. This led to the decision of using Heavy Water which, while a better moderator than graphite, was outrageously expensive comparatively and pretty much solely dependent on facilities in Norway that were sabotaged in 1943.
- They failed to come up with the proper critical mass theory, overestimating how much uranium was needed.

Both of these mistakes are easily understandable and could've went the other way, as the exact same issues plagued the American project into 1941. Indeed, specifically on the matter of critical mass theory some others associated with the German project did have the right idea during the 1940-1941 period and Heisenberg, along with other captured German scientists, were able to come up with the formula needed in August of 1945 solely go off what was being said on the radio about the atomic bombings of Japan.

Einstein’s role is grossly exaggerated, although his advocacy helped get the project political support.

But he was not the only German Jew to flee to the US.
Hans Bethe, James Franck and Dieter Gruen were also Jewish refugees of the Nazi regime.
From the British contingent Rudolf Peierls was a German refugee.

There were other Jewish refugees; many from other parts of Europe as well.
Edward Teller was from Hungary. And of course though not a refugee Oppenheimer was Jewish.

And the problems with the German program were more than theoretical.
It was not well organized, was politicized and did not receive nearly enough resources.
Even after getting the details of how to build the bomb it to the Soviets 4 years to actually do so.

Both the US and Soviets built city sized complexes to do the work.
The Manhattan project got nearly unlimited resources.
The Germans never invested nearly enough.
Looking at the absurd cost and complexity they decided it was not going make a soon enough impact to justify the cost, whereas the US put in crazy amounts of money and personnel to speed up the process.

And sure we hit the Norwegian plant. We also leveled the Oranienburg uranium plant with B-17s.
We also could and did attack major German infrastructure for their project.

While they could not bomb Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos.

I probably should've been more general and said "Jewish" instead of Einstein in particular, but the point remains: the importance of Jews in atomic research is rather overstated. Mark Oliphant and Enrico Fermi are the two I'd considered most decisive for the Allied project, although this is not an attempt to take away from the value of individuals such as Oppenheimer.

As for the Germans, it was entirely an issue stemming from their problems getting over the theoretical hurdles. The inability to properly nail down critical mass theory made them come to the conclusion that the development of Atomic weapons would not be something possible in the short term, which was decisive as far as funding and resource allotments went in the Reich given the realities of the conflict. While the multiple competing projects were an issue, it was ultimately the failure to sort through the theoretical issues that doomed the project, not an actual inability to do it. In this, not much blame can be assigned upon them; as previously noted, it wasn't until 1941 the American project was able to sort through the same issues and, further, it wasn't until Mark Oliphant visited America in late 1941 that the bomb-element of the project became emphasized and with the program in its entirety put on track.

To put things into perspective, here's a timeline of events sourced from The Critical Mass by Jonothan Logan in American Scientist, Vol. 84, No. 3 (MAY-JUNE 1996), pp. 263-277

May 1, 1939 - Francis Penin in Paris publishes a calculation of the minimum mass of natural uranium for a chain reaction: 40 tons of uranium oxide, possibly reducible to 12 tons with a neutron reflector. In a paper two weeks later he concludes that a slow-neutron chain reaction will require only 5 tons.

December, 1939 - Rudolf Peierls in Birmingham publishes an improved calculation of the critical mass, extending Perrin's results to neutron multiplication not small compared to 1; results are stated as general formulas. The article presumably did not reach Germany due to the onset of the war, but the calculations led directly to the realization of about 10 kilograms or less of U235 was needed for bombs on the part of the Allies.

February 29, 1940 - Heisenberg submits to German Army Weapons the second part of his report dealing with slow neutron chain reactions; he rejects graphite as a moderator.

January 20, 1941 - Walther Bothe and Peter Jensen in Heidelberg measure the neutron absorption cross section of graphite and mistakenly conclude that graphite can not be an effective moderator.

August, 1941 - Fritz Houtermans submits to the German Post Office a report including a critical mass formula like Perrin's but without quantitative estimates, and the suggestion that fissionable plutonium will be generated in a reactor. Houtermans' work gains little attention.

Had the Germans learned of Perrin's work and been able to figure it out from there at best, and such was entirely possible given what the Farmhill Transcripts show from August of 1945, or, at worst, got a hold of Peierls work and then just did the minor refinements from there, they would've immediately been at where the Americans were in the first half of 1941. Had Heisenberg tested ultra pure graphite, or had one of the follow on tests deduced its viability, the German project in 1940 would've then been 1-2 years ahead of their American counterpart. It's entirely possible from there the Germans could achieve nuclear weapons in mid to late 1943 at the earliest, although most probably sometime in 1944.

[Totally Not OEP]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

Yes.

[Nea Byzantia]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

Its possible. I don't know about the next 20 years, though.

[Hindu Mahasabha]

Do any of you here believe that the unification of the United States and Mexico is possible within the next twenty years, or am I just being too optimistic?

Possible.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So, I'm seeing a lot of people who reckon Mexico and the U.S. could unite in the next 20 years. Can I just ask, how? Because that seems infeasible to me with so many cultural, linguistic and political barriers between the two.