The USSR was more pivotal to winning WW2 in Europe than the USA and Britain were

This sort of debate makes me wish I had studied history longer. 1.The USSR helped Hitler establish himself Well this debate is about who won the war rather than who started it. As you stated the Nazis and Soviets signed a non-aggression act rather than an alliance. It was also signed in August 1939, when it was fairly obvious that the size of Germany's army compared to others and the fact it had rearmed so early meant is would be going to war soon anyway. Infact the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937(1) stated that Hitler wanted a full scale European war against Britain and France by 1941 anyway. Many historians have stated that is was the failure of Britain's policy of appeasement throughout the 1930s which caused WW2. The fact that the British and French allowed Germany to take Austria and Czechoslovakia due to the fact they also were interested in their own country rather than the well being of others. The USA had to wait until Germany declared war on them on the 11th of December 1941 and would be until May 1943 before US troops would even be involved in Europe. 2. Stalin supported Nazi Germany as part of his offensive strategy Stalin was a huge believer in socialism in one country. He was more concerned with modernizing the Soviet Union and consolidating his own power than expanding. Only once it was obvious that war would happen with Nazi Germany did the Soviets even consider an offensive strategy. The Soviet Union expressed its desire to form an alliance with Britain and France against Nazi Germany in early 1939, but the British and French did not wish to do this because they hoped Nazi Germany would expand eastwards and fight the Soviet Union. British, French and Soviets did not like each other and all hoped Nazi Germany would fight the other. If the USSR and Germany went to war in September 1939 Britain and France would not have gotten involved. Appeasement was Britain's way of supporting Nazi Germany as part of their strategy. 3. The Eastern Front Fell due to Hitler, not the USSR Well you could state that it was Hitler ordering the Luftwaffe to target civilian targets rather than RAF bases that made them lose the battle of Britain or the failure in not producing enough submarines for the battle of the Atlantic or the failures of the Battle of the Bulge caused the Nazis to lose rather than British and American success. As you stated yourself ,"The Russians, however, were warm and toasty with their preparedness. ," this sounds like USSR being successful. In fact in June 1942, well after the Germans had the learned lessons of the winter of the year before, 171 of the German's 226 divisions were still in the Soviet Union. It was up to the Soviet Union to fight them and push them back back to Berlin which is what they did. 4. D-Day was the beginning of the end for the Germans The 2nd of February 1943 was the beginning of the end for the Nazis. After the loss at Stalingrad Hitler never won a single important victory on the Eastern front. The distance from Normandy to Berlin is 986 miles according to Google earth. Moscow to Berlin is 1,625 miles. The Soviets took more land, killed more soldiers and endure more suffering from the Nazis. 5. We can see Britain was also under siege, worse so than the Russians (3) The soviets took 23.4 million deaths during WW2, over 12 million of which were civilians. That's 13.88 percents of the population. Britain on the other hand took 450,900 deaths or 0.94 percent of the population. In no way shape or form can it be argued that Britain suffered more from fighting Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union did. More people died in the Philippines than did in Britain. 6. Russia did nothing but repel an attack that the Nazi's issued and storm Berlin, which the other allies allowed them to do. They stormed Berlin along with the US and England, showing them to be equal. The Soviet union was exclusively involved in the Battle of Berlin(4). There were no American British involvement. Infact I would argue the opposite about who allowed whom to succeed. On the Western front between D-Day and the 2nd of May when Germany surrendered there were 1.5 million German troops on the western front(5). Over the same period there were 3.1 million Germans on the Eastern front. At no point after 1941 were Britain or America fighting or killing as many Germans as the Soviet Union were. 7. Against all odds, German entrenchments and bunkers were taken over in a beach assault. 10,000 Germans vs 156,000 American and Commonwealth troops.(6) This is a bit like how America and Britain had 5.4 million troops to the German 1.5 million after D-Day. The Soviets were occupying and destroying the majority of the Nazi forces and allowing Britain and America to have an easy victory. In conclusion 1. Britain's policy of appeasement and the USA's isolationist position were all much more integral to WW2 breaking out than the Nazi Soviet Pact 2. America and Britain only got involved in Europe by May 1943. After Germany was already in retreat mode on the Eastern front. 3. The Soviet Union took the majority of the land and were the ones to take Berlin. 4. The simplest way to see who was more pivotal is to look at post WW2 Europe. The USSR was given almost the entirety of Eastern Europe as well as the largest section of Germany. They received the most because they had done the most. At Potsdam and Yalta it was clear who had the most say. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.historyonthenet.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org... (6) http://en.wikipedia.org...