[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Thanks for the psychoanalysis TS, it's always a pleasure being patronised for my views in SD

To address this part quickly - this is just your usual attempt to shut down anything I have to say that is in disagreement with you. It's boring and from this point I'm ignoring this and similar.

Out of interest with regard to the allied strategy who would you say were the 'good guys and bad guys' Churchill, Roosevelt or Stalin?
Because as we know the decisions he made he did not make alone did he.. in a world war that would be silly talk to suggest that one man was responsible for the overall outcome wouldn't it?

I feel like you've missed the point. There are no such things as "the good guys and the bad guys" unless you get your history from primary school level textbooks or - as you mention - from Hollywood movies.

As for if one man was responsible for the outcome? That's a tough one to answer really. WW2 could very well have gone either way at certain points. Germany was defeated by a combination of efforts. Despite the popular American perception that they "stepped in to save everyone", the fact is that America couldn't even have gained a foothold in Europe without the allied forces, and Britain would have eventually folded without the US, AND neither of them could have completed the final push without Russian forces from the east dividing the German front.

Churchill was instrumental in gaining early US logistical support. Would it have come without him? Possibly, possibly not, possibly too late. It's guesswork because it didn't happen. But yes there is a distinct possibility that without Churchill, specifically, the war would have gone the other way.

[edit] To be more specific, it's very possible that without Churchill gaining logistical support from the US - which came long before their physical involvement - British military resources would have run dry fairly quickly and Germany would have taken control of all of Western Europe. The US would then have had no staging ground for landing ground forces in mainland Europe and would most likely have stuck to their, at the time, isolationist politics and focused on mainland defence of the US.