The role of the Soviet Union in defeating Germany was greater than that of the Western Allies.

"Generally what you have done is re say your arguments and then re-vamp them a little. " No, I simply rebut your arguments and you often restate your arguments with different wording. ". .. how the Allies had no knowledge of Germany breaking the treaty of Versailles through mass militarization. " The Western Allies were well aware that Germany had broken the Treaty of Versailles and was quickly rebuilding its military. After all, Britain and France were two of the countries that made the treaty. The only reason they did nothing when Germany broke the treaty was because they were afraid of having another war. "You stated that the U. S. did not assist in the capture of Berlin, yet they did, they severed Hitler"s last escape route causing him to commit suicide. " Actually, the USA stopped some 50 miles from Berlin on the west bank of the Elbe River. The Soviets completely encircled Germany forces in Berlin and Hitler was also there in that pocket. Map: . http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com... "When Germany lost in Africa, Germany was essentially halted from invading any more land, including a very strategic point where supply lines with Japan could have been easily made. And the argument that "it cannot be important because it is a desert" is ludicrous. Evidently it is much more than a desert but a strategic point. " Africa had no economic or strategic importance. The only reason Hitler bothered to send men there was to save Italy, like they had to do in Greece. Those soldiers in Africa could have been much more useful on the eastern front. Also in order to link up with Japan, Germany would still have had to fight through Egypt, the Middle East, and India. If Germany made a linked up with Japan then nothing would really happen since Japan was busy up to the neck fighting the USA, China, and Australia in the Pacific and most of the German forces were stuck on the eastern front. So the war in Africa was unimportant compared to the fighting that was happening on the eastern front. Like I said earlier, Germany lost more men at Stalingrad alone than it did during the three years it spent fighting the allies in Africa. "With the American supplies, again it is ludicrous to say that they are un-important! How can someone capture a city with no ammo, food, shelter or tools? " Yes ammo, food, and tools are important. However my point is that the Soviets were producing much more than Germany so although American supplies basically saved Britain, they were minor in the east. Also, American and British tanks that were sent to the east were inferior to most German and Soviet tanks and did little. "Yes the allied invasion of France was important, as it cut back German troops, how can you say the capture of new land is not important to war? " The allied invasion of France had no effect on the outcome of the war. By 1944 the German was down to boys and old men and it was clear they would lose; only Hitler saw otherwise. The Western Allies signed a deal with the USSR that they would open a second front in France as early as 1942 which they never did so the Western Allies made this same promise to open a second front in 1943. Once again, they never did. Only by 1944, when it was clear Germany would lose was the second front opened. That is why Germany was outnumbered 15:1 by the Western Allies during D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge by which time there were 3 million allied troops in France. "The fact that the Western Allies fought on multiple fronts (and more than the Soviets) does say a lot as it proves my point of this debate. " The Western Allies fought on small fronts in Africa, Italy, and France. Small and unimportant compared to the eastern front. However what you don"t seem to realize is that although the Soviet-German front is often referred to as the Eastern Front, there were many different fronts throughout WWII which made up the Eastern Front. This link has a list of all of those fronts. Some are larger and more important and others smaller and less important. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(military_formation) Scroll down to see the Soviet WWII fronts. "Also yes the Allies were appeased by western Allies for 6 years before the war, but the Soviets were at peace DURING the war. And indeed they did lose more men, but that does not prove that they did more in that time. The fact remains that there was more strategic advance and capture by the Allies rather than the Soviets. " Out of everything you said so far, this is the most incorrect. The Soviets were at peace for two years in a war that wasn"t theirs to fight. Just like the USA was at peace until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor 6 months following the German invasion of the USSR. Your strongest argument seems to be that the USSR was at peace while the western allies were fighting. Funny, in 1939 Britain and France signed a pact to defend Poland in the case of a German invasion however it took them two days to declare war on Germany following this invasion and then they just sat behind the Maginot line while Germany invaded Poland in two weeks. Then the Western Allies lost Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France, and almost Britain. My point is that most of Europe was losing the war until the Soviets entered. The only reason Germany lost in Africa was because he needed all of the 3.8 million men for the Eastern Front; he could only spare about 150,000 to send to Africa. "Also the Luftwaffe destroyed most of the Soviet aircraft and only had a minor defeat to the Soviets after they deployed strategic fighters. The rest were defeated by Britain and bombed by the RAF in the Luftwaffe air force base. " Germany did destroy many Soviet planes; however that does not change the fact that some 50% of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in the east. "Also you have presented a new argument by listing the comparisons of Germany's defeat. " No I was simply trying to show you how insignificant the fighting that the western allies endured was compared to what happened on the eastern front and how small and unimportant the fronts the western allies fought on were. It is safe to assume that the USSR basically saved Britain. Another 100,000 out of the ~3.5 million man German army and Britain would be toast long before American boots ever set foot in Morocco. "In conclusion, you have only rebutted a few of my arguments and poorly constructed a rebuttal to a few of my major points. " Well you only had a few arguments to begin with and I replied to all of them. "Please refrain from making new arguments and stick to the debate topic, rather than diverting off on "who killed more". " I was simply explaining that the reason Germany lost the war was not because it lost a few hundred thousand men fighting the western allies in Africa, Italy, and France, but because they lost millions fighting the Soviets on the eastern front. Hopefully that clears up the confusion. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://www.youtube.com... Also, you say that the Soviets lost a many men while the Western Allies made full use of their manpower and inflicted more damage to Germany with what they had. I supposed your talking about the German invasion of France where an outnumbered German army destroyed an allies army of 2.3 million while only suffering ~160,000 casualties. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Anyway, whatever your point is, saying that "over 25 million Soviets died during WWII" isn't an argument. The fact remains that all sides of WWII endured heavy losses, some more than others. The reason the Soviets suffered more than any other country was because they were fighting and killing more axis soldiers than any other country which helps prove my point about the USSR playing the most important role in defeating Germany. CONCLUSION: Clearly I have stronger arguments. Out of the three arguments that Con provided, only one of them makes any sense for this debate. On the other hand, if you look at the statistics of what the Soviets did in WWII to defeat Germany and the scale of the fighting that took place, you can safely assume that the Western Allies did little. This is especially true if you consider the fact that the Western Allies fought on the sidelines until 11 months until the end of the war while the Soviets endured the bulk of the German military. The first real losses Hitler suffered were in the east. The last real losses that Hitler suffered were also in the east. Historians generally agree that there were three main turning points in the war in Europe: 1. The Battle of Moscow showed that Hitler would not win a quick victory on his own Terms. 2. The Battle of Stalingrad showed Germany would lose the war; the only question would be how badly. Would it be total destruction or a negotiated peace? 3. The Battle of Kursk showed that the only path left for Germany is total destruction, that Germany would lose sooner or later. (Video two proves/explains this) . http://www.youtube.com... Although the victory over Nazi Germany was a joint effort, it is clear that the USSR played by far the most important role.