Britain overall key player in WWII...

Franco would not have become involved. If Adolf Hitler could not twist his arm, for sure the Allies wouldn't have been able to. ( Didn't Hitler famously remark that he'd rather undergo a tooth extraction at the dentist than have another meeting with Franco ? )

 

Unfortunately never found anything more on this but a few remarks on that Winston would have paid some nice sums to Mr Franco to stay out of war. I´m sure the Germans paid some too so he must have gotten some pretty nice sums?? Anyway, Franco did not have the guns, planes etc to get involved in anyhting bigger, I think.

One interesting aspect would be the visit of Canaris. What did he really tell Franco to do...

Then again Stalin got all the Spanish bank gold in 1939 when the communists escaped from the country so Franco was sorta out of money at the time... (no wonder Stalin smiled alot at the time...)

 

Why not? Didn't the US successfully fought an island-to-island warfare through the vastness of the Pacific Ocean? Didn't many of the troops that landed during 'Torch' had been shipped, not in the UK, but the very eastern American coast?

It would have certainly recquired many, many more resources and men, but the US could afford it. Specially without Lend & Lease.

The decisve year of the Great Patriotic War was 1941. With the failure of 'Barbarossa' German hopes for a victory vanished forever. If we take Great Britain out of the picture, saying that she was invaded and crushed in 1940 (by the work of the Holy Spirit or Godzilla), all what Germany gets to throw against Russia is the magnificent amount of:

- 2 Panzer divisions, 1 motorised division and 1 Fliegerkorps.
- A couple AA guns from German cities (not slightly as many as there were in 1944).
- Some coastal defences and garrisson troops from the inexistant Atlantic Wall.

The only worth thing would have been a stronger Luftwaffe that didn't go through the attrition and tremendous losses in men and matériel of the Battle of Britain and Crete.

However, all that is nowhere near of fullfilling the needed recquirements in men and matériel for a victorious 'Barbarossa'.

Definately a stalemate: there was little or no way either nation (Germany and Great Britain) could, by herself, get troops on the other side of the Channel and defeat her opponent.

No, it is not possible. The Soviet Union did NOT succumb without material assistance. By the time Lend & Lease supplies started arriving in substantial quantities (mid-December 1941), the Soviets had not only halted the German offensive, but were counter-attacking along the whole front.

 

As the war happened yes, it was the key year. Remember though, the US entry into the war was a big morale boost for everyone involved against Germany. War isn't simply a matter of numbers and resources, morale and perceived chances of victory play very heavily into a military's performance, and a state's decision of what kind of peace they are willing to settle for. I would wager that had the United States never gotten involved, Stalin might have been inclined to offer the Germans much more than he did in '42 and '43. Just the fact that he was willing to offer peace means Stalin himself didn't see his chances of winning at near perfect.

Ah yes, but Operation Mars(?) was a failure, and the Germans resumed the offensive the following year, with the Red Army still in a debilitated condition. Without the serious amount of aid coming through Murmansk and Iran, the Soviets would not have been able to provide as stiff of resistance as they did.

Ultimately though, I need to check my numbers on what amounts of what the Reds got from us, and how it was deployed. That requires research on my part that I will have to do later. Bed time for now!

 

Quote< Ultimately though, I need to check my numbers on what amounts of what the Reds got from us, and how it was deployed. That requires research on my part that I will have to do later. Bed time for now>

Check over in the "Russia" section here.
There are a couple threads on Lend-lease along with some good Links.

 

October 1941 to June 1942
Aircraft 1285
Tanks 2249
Machine-guns 81287
Explosives, pounds 59455620
Trucks 36825
Field telephones 56445
Telephone wire, km 600000

 

Quite simply the war was won and lost in the East. The Germans lost more men and materials on this front than any other. When you compare Normandy to an operation like Bagration you see the difference between the two fronts

Overall the annihilation of Army Group Centre cost the Germans 2,000 tanks and 57,000 other vehicles. German losses are estimated at 300,000 dead, 250,000 wounded, and about 120,000 captured; overall casualties at 670,000. Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing. 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 planes were lost by the Soviets as well.

The Eastern Front (or Western Front for the Russians!!) bled the German War Machine White over the course of 3.5 years.

Britain by itself contributed more in the beginning of the war by holding out against the Germans until new Allies could come on board. It only ever had one single victory of an offensive nature against the Germans, at El Alamein. Everything else was achieved with the help of the US forces.

The US was the chief weapons manufacturer for the Allied Cause and its army and air force was huge. It was the overwhelming powerhouse in the West due to its superior numbers in Personnel and Equipment.

The Russians suffered more than any other nation in WW2 and whilst doing so managed to not just blunt the Wehrmacht but throw it back from whence it came and ultimately destroying it.

Don’t forget that whilst Britain and America where fighting a war of liberation, Russia was engaged in a war of extermination with Germany. If they didn’t defeat Germany then they could expect no mercy from them. Russia as a country was finished. Their population would have entered a new dark age from which they would never have emerged. If they werent clinically massacred then they would have been reduced to a level which made a serf look like a king.

 

I would agree that not any one country could be catagorized as a MVP but Great Britain's contribution is being the key country on which the allies hinged. Meaning, GB stuck it out and kept the allies together. The USSR provided the manpower and sacrificed its population while breaking the back of Nazi Germany. USA provided the material and additional manpower to create an effective second front.