the soviet union was BY FAR the strongest allied country in ww2

since it is a war i think it is appropriate to say the main "strength" of a country in a WAR should be based mainly on its army. You still don't get it. World War II was a total war; where victory was obtained through moral and military/industrial attrition. Winning a battle with your army in WWII did not move you any closer to victory if you were physically or materially unable to replace your losses. Fact.What? "diplomatic" Luxembourg has a better diplomatic sis-tam than North Korea. Is Luxembourg stronger than north Korea? defiantly not. Luxembourg is a US ally and member of NATO, were North Korea to actually attack Luxembourg, Luxembourg would come out on top due to its "diplomatic advantages" with NATO and the USA. you picked the smallest number for the USSR and the smallest from the USSR. so to sum up: on average: USA= 10,000,000 and the USSR had 17,000,000 - is just one (http://www.angelfire.com......) Your own source; http://www.angelfire.com... lists only the industrial production numbers from WWII and total number of casualties for each country. No where on that webpage does it ever mention "17 million Soviets" or show peak troop levels for the USA or USSR. If my numbers were even slightly biased, then yours are completely imaginary. Also u forget to meson the USSR had far more artillery, Missile launchers, tanks, men and armored vehicles. You again continue to reject the fact that a great deal of Soviet was equipment was in fact lend to them by the UK and USA, or manufactured with American imported steel. HOW DARE THOSE DIRTY JAPS BOMB OUR HARBOR! WE WONT TAKE THIS SURRENDER WE WOULD RATHER FIRE BOMB THERE CITY'S A BIT MORE!- MURICA.RAWR!! HOW DARE THEM GERMANS INVADE THE MOTHERLAND! I, COMRADE STALIN, SHALL PERMIT MY FORCES TO RAPE EVERY INNOCENNT WOMEN AND CHILD IN BERLIN:http://www.theguardian.com... AND SHALL I SHALL RULE WITH AN IRONFIST EVERY EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS! HAIL MOTHER RUSSIA! US efficiency- 1 Manchuria/1 year NOT GOOD (for all that "strength" I would expect more2 bombs. 2 planes. The whole of Japan surrenders unconditionally. How's that for efficiency! "transporting and supplying"- Russia is like a massif rail road and practically BORDERS JAPAN. It would be easy for them. This is silly. Japan is a dug in island with a formidable navy and airforce. Each Japanese civilian was willing to fight to the last man. Russia would not get very far with the expected Japanese insurgency, and could not hope to support or supply a million man army in Japan without having the logistical support of a large navy or airforce. it (lend-lease) was send after Stalingrad when the soviets had won. The most crucial Lend-Lease supplies to the USSR came during 1941-1942 immediately after Operation Barbarrosa. You'll remember that It had something to do with the Red Army being caught totally unprepared for war, and then leaving most of its equipment and armour behind as they ran from the Germans. "fighting 3 wars"- words cant express the anger i am in about that statement. I'm sorry then that the Russians didn't bother to fight in the other two. Apparently they weren't nearly as strong or as capable as the American military afterall. "kill/death ratio"- K/D? Nobody knows for sure what the exact k/d ratios were on the Eastern Front. But judging from your own source: http://www.angelfire.com... 29 million Soviets dead compared to 5.65 million Germans (from the whole of WWII); we know that it must haven been pretty horrendous on the Russian end. Which -videogame stat or not- does infact statistically prove that the Red Army had a habit of taking many more casualties then the Germans did when fighting on the Eastern Front. I argue then that this was most likely due to the Germans being vastly more superior to the Red Army in terms of battle doctrine, competency, and quality of arms. And if that assertion is -in the debate judges' opinion- historically accurate, then you have failed to prove that the USSR had the strongest army in WWII. North Korea have more men in its army than the USA? the USA has more "available man power". Not really sure again what illiterate point your trying to make, but the facts show that North Korea does NOT have more active duty personnel in the military than the USA. USA - 1,369,532 DPRK -1,190,000 Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... My atomic bomb? I dot have any at the time... Then you must concede to the voters that the Soviet Union would have been at a significant military disadvantage to the USA who had them.NO the soviets were making T-34s at the fasted rate ever in history so no u are wrong. All thanks again to US imported gasoline, aluminum, copper, zinc, and steel from lend lease to actually make the tanks, and enough food to feed an army (or a soviet workforce) of 12 million people every single day for the entire war. (http://wwiidiaries.com...) OK i don't have enough space left to disprove all your points so i will bullet point whats wrong with each one: -NO it dose not, done -u said why the US needed a navy not Russia- OF TOPIC -Well it did take out Nazi Germany so ye it worked pretty well. -the Brits done the same thing in ww1- its not evil its discipline and also needed when up Agnese the Nazis- (yes Stalin is evil but so was Trooman-250,000 innocent lives to show of a weapon) -agreed Russia had a bad navy case closed -Hitler could not retreat because the Germans were encircled. -As u can see by my last source when the Yalta conference took place Russia was on top of Berlin while the US had just penetrated Germany. -but as agreed they did not have a STRONG NAVY -4 sources were used to show all points -Total USSR armored vehicles - 12,000 = still a lot more than the US -covered -i mean will to fight for there country. not morels- sorry i meant morale -navy= BAD and amazon.com is an irrelevant source -sorry for the long list but i ran out ...or to say, simply put: ATOMIC BOMBS. Holy heck, what a play by Derek Jeter! Yankees win! Yankees win! /Ballgame