Talk:British contribution to the Manhattan Project

British
"James Chadwick was the head of a distinguished team of British scientists at the Los Alamos Laboratory that included Niels Bohr, Peierls, Frisch, Sir Geoffrey Taylor, James Tuck and Klaus Fuchs, who was later revealed to be a Soviet atomic spy." Even though Peierls, Frisch, Fuchs and Bohr fled Germany and Denmark for the United Kingdom during the war, and, in the case of the three former (I can find nothing on Bohr), gained British citizenships, it seems disingenuous to count them as "British" without any qualifiers. To the extent that holding a British citizenship makes someone British, they were only British because they were forced there by the war.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * A number of the scientists left Europe and went to Britain pre-war and for the Manhattan Project the US made it a condition that only foreign scientists who were British subjects would be allowed to participate in the Project so all members of the British Mission who were not "British" were given British citizenship., i.e., were naturalised. Any German citizen was technically an "Enemy Alien" in the US and would have been arrested on arrival there by the FBI, and so, as with the other occupied countries, it was necessary them to possess British passports.


 * Australian, Canadian, and other British Empire citizens were already British subjects, and so already had British passports.


 * Leo Szilard and Edward Teller were not born as American citizens either, and nobody complains about them being classed as "American". Neither was Albert Einstein.


 * BTW, Robert Oppenheimer stated that the British contribution was crucial and that without the British the Manhattan Project would almost certainly never have happened. And there was a properly-sourced and referenced quote of him saying so in the Manhattan Project article a number of years ago - long since removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.114 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Niels Bohr never became a British citizen. He remained a Dane. Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls not only took out British citizenship, but made Britain their home for the rest of their lives. Like Fuchs, they left Germany before the war. Only Bohr fled during the war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the Rudolf Peierls article, Peierls became UK citizen in 1940; according to the Otto Robert Frisch article, Frisch became UK citizen sometime between 1939 and 1943; according to the Klaus Fuchs article, Fuchs became UK citizen in or after 1939. Whether they "left Germany before the war" is completely irrelevant - merely leaving Germany makes no one British.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether British contribution was crucial is irrelevant - that isn't a question I commented on. My comment pertains solely to the four specifically named scientists whose entire lives and careers had taken place outside the UK until just two to three years before the Manhattan Project begun. I am not even saying they can't be mentioned in the article on account of their citizenship status - I'm just questioning whether it is honest and comprehensive to cast them as British without any qualifiers. They could be called "naturalised British citizens" and that would be enough to signal to the reader that they have another background than solely British. I just don't want to start a food fight over it in the edit box - by merely commenting on it here I have already evoked your defensive stance on the unrelated question of whether British contribution was crucial.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What would you like to change? Perhaps we can come put an addition in the article that we can agree on? The article leans on the brilliantly sourced British scientists & the Manhattan Project by Ferenc Morton Szasz. I must point out that Ralph Carlisle Smith's summary of the British Mission to Los Alamos list puts 32 members of that mission & includes names like Niels & Aage Bohr despite being Danish but also Egon Bretscher, George Placzek, Joseph Rotblat.  So from a sourced point of view the article in not in the wrong. Shire Lord  (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing the sentence to something along the lines of: "James Chadwick was the head of a team of distinguished scientists at the Los Alamos Laboratory that included British-born Sir Geoffrey Taylor and James Tuck as well as Niels Bohr, Peierls, Frisch, and Klaus Fuchs, who had all fled to the United Kingdom in the years leading up to the war."--Anders Feder (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Might be better this way in reference to what I said above As head of the British mission to Los Alamos Laboratory James Chadwick led a team of distinguished scientists that included Sir Geoffrey Taylor and James Tuck. Also included were Niels Bohr, Peierls, Frisch, and Klaus Fuchs, who had all fled to the United Kingdom in the years leading up to the war. No need to mention where they were born. Shire Lord (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did this.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's not correct. Niel Bohr fled during the war; Frisch, Peierls and Fuchs fled before the war. The latter three all jumped at the chance to become British citizens. I hope that readers will drill down and find the stories of the lesser lights like Joan Curran and Philip Baxter. I am concerned about the wording of Chadwick as the head of the British Mission to the Los Alamos Laboratory. This is correct; but he was became head of the entire British Mission, which included Peierls' team at Los Alamos, Oliphant's at Berkeley, and Cockcroft's at Montreal. I hope this comes across. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh good god is User talk:Hawkeye7 going on about that factotum Baxter again? Juan Riley (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well then change it to British mission of the Manhattan project? Shire Lord (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Bohr didn't 'flee' Denmark before the war, he voluntarily left via Sweden during the war specifically to join the British Mission, as did his son, who were both flown out by the RAF/BOAC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.4 (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

British?
Sigh..there were significant British contributions to the Manhattan Project. But for example claiming Rudolf Peierls and Otto Frisch as British? Rather pathetic especially since the Maude committee did not let "them" know anything because they were "enemy aliens". Juan Riley (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They were naturalised British subjects. The point is not that they were British, but that they were part of the British Mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And enemy aliens? Juan Riley (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps rename to British Mission Contribution to the Manhattan Project? Juan Riley (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article covers the British contribution, not just the contribution of the British Mission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * History requires a wee bit more nuance than you seem to be able to bring to the table, Hawkeye7. Juan Riley (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually at the time before their British naturalisation Peierls and Frisch were only "enemy aliens" to the US. Neither was required to obtain British citizenship for access to Tube Alloys.


 * ... and the only reason there is all this arguing about all this is because of the widespread ignorance due to the US writing-out of history after World War II the British and Canadian contribution to the Manhattan Project and then in effect lying about it being a solely "US" project. Then it went back on the 1943 Quebec Agreement with the passing of the 1946 MacMahon Act, effectively forcing the UK to spend money it could little afford after the worst war in history in developing a bomb once again, this time on its own. Which it successfully did. And it didn't need anyone else's help, not did it need to "steal secrets" from someone else, to do it.


 * British participants in both Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Projects were banned by the Official Secrets Act from divulging any information relating to these areas of work until around 1973. After that time information started to become available to those who knew where to look for it. That was presumably why the British scientists involved earlier in the Manhattan Project didn't give a loud collective equivalent of "WTF!" on hearing American reporting of its history. To be fair to many of the Americans involved most would have been aware that British participants would have been governed by the UK's own secrecy laws and so would have honoured the Official Secrets Act under reciprocal arrangements, and not mentioned their (i.e., the British scientists') involvement without express permission from the UK's representatives in Washington.


 * And BTW, the "bomb" wasn't developed for dropping on Japan. It was developed for dropping on Germany. And if the war in Europe hadn't ended in May 1945, it would have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.114 (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "'The United States would not, I think, have worked on the atomic bomb during the Second World War if it had not been for British input, and British encouragement, they agreed that they would share the technology during the war. It was part of the famous 'trunkload of secrets' that were sent over here in the hopes of exchanging the information with us and encouraging us to use our vast industrial capacity to help fight the war' - Richard Rhodes - Equinox 'A Very British Bomb', Channel 4, 1997. From:"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI, It was also a Briton who actually selected the Japanese targets of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was William Penney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edward Norris described as interior decorator
Hello, in the "Gaseous Diffusion Project" section, third paragraph, Edward Norris is currently described as an interior decorator. While this is a useful set of skills, I fail to see how it could help nuclear technology advances :D Have a nice day, 77.204.56.112 (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now you know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Allen Nunn May and Fuchs
"The reputation of the British Mission to Los Alamos was tarnished by the 1950 revelation that Fuchs was a Soviet atomic spy. It damaged the relationship between the United States and Britain," May's article states that he was the first soviet spy to be discovered, four years before Fuchs. Did the British inform the US? 2600:4040:22F1:EB00:1960:452:76AC:6D05 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, they did. But the revelation that Alan Nunn May was a spy did not have nearly the same impact as Fuchs because Nunn May worked at the Montreal Laboratory, which was away from the most important work. Whereas Fuchs worked at Los Alamos, at the heart of the effort, and knew about all the work that had gone on there, including the early work on the hydrogen bomb. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

British progress as of 1943 and the Quebec Agreement
The text reads: "At this point, British research into the physics required for a bomb was more advanced."

This is 100% wrong and should be changed. The British initially declined participation in the Manhattan Project when it started in 1942. One year later, they changed their mind because they realized that they were far behind, and would benefit from participation. This is clear in the companion article on this subject in Wikipedia for the Quebec Agreement. It reads:

"The American effort soon overtook the British. British scientists who visited the United States in 1942 were astounded at the progress and momentum the Manhattan Project had assumed. On 30 July 1942, Anderson advised Churchill that: "We must face the fact that ... [our] pioneering work ... is a dwindling asset and that, unless we capitalise it quickly, we shall be outstripped. We now have a real contribution to make to a 'merger'. Soon we shall have little or none"."

This is supported by clear notes to the primary source material. Dmbeaster (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ I have removed that sentence from the lead. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  05:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)