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

It seems that Con has finally decided to address my arguments from round one, and even though he addresses some of them, he ignores several also. In addition to this, he has three new arguments which he believes strengthen his position. First, he states that the Western Allies mobilized more divisions than the Soviets. Second, he states that the Western Allies out produced the Soviets. And Finally, he tries to argue that the battles fought by the Western Allies were more important than those fought by the Soviets.Con states that the Soviets only mobilized 20 million men and that the Western Allies mobilized 21.69 million men. Con's own sources prove otherwise. In Africa for example, the Western Allies only had a few hundred thousand men, less than a million combat troops. I would also like to point out that considering the fact that I cannot look at the information that Con provided in the books, four out of the eight sources can be disregarded. I take it that Con is new to DDO. Well I will just say that if he does not provide sources that one can actually SEE, then those sources can be ignored. Although Con gives everybody some unsupported facts about how many men the Soviets and the west mobilized, he does not state how this supports his position about the Western Allies doing more than the Soviets.Con then talks about how the United States and the United Kingdom produced far more than the USSR. He provides no sources for this argument and I am not sure which, if any, of those eight sources at the bottom apply to this argument. I agree that the United States produced more than the USSR, however this does not support your position. In his second argument, Con basically points out a bunch of random numbers of what each side produced without giving any sources. Con does not say HOW those statistics show that the Western Allies did more in WWII than the Soviets.Finally Con tried to show how important the Battles fought by the Western Allies really were. I am not sure why he is quoting my words from round one in round four. Anyway, Con tries to say that the reason Hitler lost at Moscow was because of Hitler's bad planning and the bad weather. His own source supports the fact that the Soviets lost over a million men in the attempt to stop Hitler from capturing Moscow. Con's own source also supports the fact that at the time, the Battle of Moscow was Hitler's largest defeat. And yet Con tried to diminish the Soviet contribution by saying that the Nazis made mistakes. The Germans did not prepare for the winter and therefor, the Soviet army had a relatively small impact on the outcome of the fighting. Interesting, Hitler did not prepare for an allied landing at Normandy, he expected the landing to be at Calais. Does that mean that Hitler's mistakes were more important than the fighting done by the British and American soldiers in order to liberate France? Hitler lost at Moscow because of the Soviet army, the winter simply helped. Just like Germany was defeated by the Soviet Army, the Western Allies simply helped.After trying to diminish the importance of the Battle of Moscow, Con tried to diminish the importance of the Battles of Stalingrad. At Stalingrad, Hitler lost more men than he lost while fighting the Western Allies from 1939-1942. Stalingrad resulted in 850,000 German casualties. That is more than the axis lost during the three years spent fighting in Africa, Con's own sources prove this."WHAT?! The Western Allies were PLAYING FIDDLE IN SICILY? The invasion of Sicily the decisive point of 1943. And the Germans only lost the battle of Kursk because of this invasion. He omits the fact that when Americans and British landed on Sicily on July 10, Hitler cancelled Operation Citadel(the codename for the German actions in Kursk) to defend Italy!! He knew the West now threatened Italy and Southern France. And it's worth reminding that Stalin(you, hahaha) pressured the West to open another front with Germany."Con now tries to diminish the importance of Kursk, one of the most important battles of WWII by saying that the allies had just landed in Sicily. At Kursk the Germans suffered around 250,000 casualties, his own sources prove that. At Kursk, the Soviets destroyed so many German tanks that after the battle, the Germans tanks were no longer really a threat to the allies at all. Con's sources show this so I do not need to prove anything. At Sicily, Germany and Italy lost about 150,000 men and no tanks.[1] Which is more significant in terms of defeating Germany? Then Con tried to talk about how Hitler called off the Kursk offensive because the allies had invaded Sicily and might invade Italy. However the fact remains that Operation Citadel began before the Sicily landings. When Hitler called off the offensive, his Generals had mixed opinions. Some believed he should continue the advance. Others believed that they should withdraw due to Soviet buildup and counteroffensives that would soon start. Operation Kutuzov and Operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev, the two Soviet counteroffensives following the Kursk offensive threatened to encircle large portions of the German army. Had Hitler continued the Kursk offensive he would have most likely lost considering the fact that the Soviets were preparing counteroffensives and outnumbered the Germans 2 to 1. These facts are proven by Con's sources."REALLY?! So the British colonies in the Middle East were protected by soviets? Didn't Montgomery fought against Rommel in the desert of Egypt and Libya? And after the fall of France? Syria was a French colony with oil and THE BRITISH stood and protected them from the Vichy government, which was Hitler's ally."Yes, Montgomery did fight Rommel, I think we all know that. However what isn't known is that had the Soviets lost at Stalingrad, then the Germans would be able to invade the lightly defended oil fields of the Middle East. Clearly Con did not look at my map from round 2.Finally Con wants me to prove that the Soviets defeated 80% of the Nazi Wehrmacht. First of all, I would like to state that in 1941, at the same time that Germany had 150,000 men in Africa, there were 3.5 million axis soldiers for Operation Barbarossa. Anyway, I will simply provide some sources that prove that roughly 80% of the German forces died in the east.This source show that in North Africa and Italy, about 50,000 German soldiers died. On the eastern front, over a million Germans died. Please look carefully at the charts.http://en.wikipedia.org...Although your sources may show that only 60% or so of the Germans were fighting in the east by 1944, this is only because of the heavy losses that the Germans suffered during the war.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...