The United States' involvement in WWII was just as important in saving Europe as the Soviet Union's.

"The number of men killed is irrelevant in who saved Europe."The USSR destroyed 80% of the German army. Therefore, it did the most to save Europe from Germany."In 1941, the number of Germans was 3,767,000. In 1942 of the same month, it had gone down to 3,720,000."That is largely because reinforcements arrived to the eastern front.I would like to start off by saying that Con completely fails to prove that without American supplies, the allies would definitely have lost the war in Europe. In round 2 and 3, Con argued that the USSR needed those supplies in 1941/1942 since they had suffered heavy losses. I said that by 1943, the USSR was producing 3x as much as Germany. Con replied to this by incorrectly stating that American supplies were included. Con goes on to provide statistics on how America provided armored vehicles, tanks*, telephones, and trucks. Unfortunately Con does not talk about the total Soviet production. How many tanks did the USSR produce? How many vehicles did the USSR produce? Con does not talk about how much American supplies helped the Soviets. Therefor, Con fails to prove that without American supplies, the Soviet Union would definitely have collapsed. *I would like to point out that most American tanks were no match for a German Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panzer V, Panthers, and Tigers.Con completely ignored my argument on how the USSR was responsible for the destruction of 80% of the German army. Con simply disregards this argument by saying that "the number of men killed is irrelevant in who saved Europe." Wait, so the USSR did most of the fighting but that doesn't count towards the Soviets saving Europe from Germany? Lets face it: Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union. Therefore, the USSR saved Europe from Germany. The USSR did more to save Europe from Germany because the USSR did more to defeat Germany. American supplies helped, but they were not what saved Europe from Germany."The reason the Allies couldn't open the front in France was because of the lack of manpower and equipment."There were 3 million allied troops in France in 1944. In 1942/1943 I'm sure there must have been at least 500,000 troops. [1]http://www.archives.gov...(1)500,000 men is more than enough to successfully defeat a German front of 10,000 men. I would also like to point out that Con completely ignored my argument that the Soviets saved the world during the battle of Stalingrad. I showed how Germany could have broken into the Middle East and begun invading the British Empire. America would never have reached Africa quickly enough in large enough numbers. Con completely ignores this argument.Conclusion on who did more to save Europe from Germany:Con chose to completely ignore two of my arguments (which I stated above). Instead he decided to provide statistics on how many tanks and telephones America sent to the USSR. However what Con fails to do is prove that without American supplies, the USSR would definitely have collapsed. I stated earlier that the USSR was producing 3x as much as Germany by 1943. And this did not include American supplies. As I stated before, the reason the USSR did more to save Europe from Germany is because the USSR did more to actually defeat Germany. Sure American supplies helped. But it was the Soviets who did most of the fighting and dying. America arrived late and played a minor role in the defeat of Germany. Germany's fate was determined on the eastern front. The Soviets did more to defeat Germany than the United States. Therefore, the USSR played a greater role in saving Europe from Germany.I will now talk about saving Europe from the Soviets. Con stated that the United States saved Europe from the USSR. However I don't think that Con realizes that many countries participated in saving Europe from the USSR. Romania, Finland, Germany, Britain, America, etc all helped to save Europe from the Soviet Union. The question one may ask is which country did the most to save Europe from the USSR? Well the obvious answer would be Germany. Considering the fact that Germany was responsible for killing millions of Red Army soldiers and destroying many Russian cities. Nazi Germany also played an important role in the eventual break-up of the USSR in 1991.Who played the second most important role in saving Europe from the Soviets? That would be Stalin himself. Con seems to underestimate the power of the Red Army in 1941. He says that the USSR would have had no chances of defeating Germany. "After the purge, the army was left with little to no officer corp, and Stalin knew he could not enter a full war." The purge did not deprive the USSR of all good marshals. The USSR could still take on Germany in 1941. "After the war started, Stalin quickly built up his army's infrastructure." Stalin was doing this throughout the 1930's. He was building up his army as quickly as he could and making radical military reforms in the process. "By the time the war had ended, Stalin had the manpower and infrastructure needed." By the time the war ended, the USSR was in ruins. The USSR had just lost millions of people. Many Soviet cities had been destroyed. The USSR had a larger manpower in the beginning of the war than at the end. This argument makes no sense."Russia had no means to [take Europe] at the time."Russia didn't really intend to take Europe. But Stalin did. There is actually real evidence of Stalin's intention to invade Europe and eventually "liberate" Europe from the Nazis. Stalin wanted to take over the world if he could.http://en.wikipedia.org..."Stalin didn't save Europe. He simply didn't have the infrastructure."He sure did. The USSR had an air force larger than that of all other countries combined. The Soviets had very good tanks and a very good navy. On top of this, the USSR had some of the best artillery in the world. The only problem was that the USSR was not prepared for defensive actions. The Soviet Union was prepared for offensive actions instead. The previous link proves this.Had Stalin moved in and invaded Germany in 1940 while Germany was still fighting in France, the USSR would have undoubtedly won. The Germans lacked resources including oil. Germany was very dependent on Soviet supplies (before they took over other countries) as Con proved. For example, in the battle of Britain, there were three components: the Spitfire, the Messerschmitt, and Soviet oil. Without Soviet oil, Germany would never have been able to invade France. And imagine if the Soviet Union stopped sending these supplies since they were invading. Germany would undoubtedly collapse.There was also another opportunity that Stalin missed to capture Europe and defeat Germany in the process. This source will talk about this: http://en.wikipedia.org...(map of invasion) http://militera.lib.ru...The USSR could have successfully defeated Germany had they invaded Germany on June 12, 1941.I have proved that Stalin did more than the USA to save Europe from the Soviet Union by making the incorrect decisions. Con tried and failed to prove that the USSR was simply not ready for a war. In 1941 the USSR had by far the largest army in the world. And had this army been unleashed upon Germany when Germany was not ready, Europe would undoubtedly have fallen to the Soviet Union.Con also talks about how Britain would have had no chances of invading France without the aid of the United States. His own source contradicts this.http://www.archives.gov...In 1944, the allies had 3 million men in France prepared for an invasion. Lets say half of these were American and only 156,000 were loaded onto ships bound for France. All you would need to do to have a successful D-Day is to replace American men with British men and there were plenty of British soldiers in England.I would also like to note that Con did not really reply to the chronological list that I made of the scenario in the previous round.Conclusion: In round one, Con's stance was that without American supplies the allies would have lost the war. The only problem is that Con completely failed to prove this. Sure he provided statistics on how many tanks and trucks the United States sent to the USSR. But Con never really described how Soviet military capabilities would have completely collapsed without American aid. In round three however, Con's stance changed to "the Russians depended a lot on US supplies..." In addition to this, Con chose to completely ignore two of my major arguments on how the USSR did more to save Europe from Germany. I stated that the USSR was responsible for defeating 80% of the German military. Then I stated that the USSR was responsible for possibly saving the world by defeating the Germans at Stalingrad. Con responded to both of these arguments by saying that this does not have anything to do with who did more to save Europe. In that case, must have been gravely mistaken in thinking that whoever did more to defeat Germany in WWII did more to save Europe from Germany. Con proceeds to explain how the United States saved Europe from the Soviet Union. However I countered this by explaining that the United States did not play the most important role in saving Europe from the USSR: Stalin and Hitler did. I would also like to point out that the Western Allies failed to save around 2/3's of Europe from the Soviet Union.Con tried to skip around the main points in this debate. He completely ignored some of my strongest arguments. I finally conclude by saying that WWII was about saving the world from the axis aggressors, not from the Soviet Union. The Cold War was about saving Europe from the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, I showed how the United States was not the most important country to save Europe from the Soviets during WWII.I thank Con for this debate. Perhaps some time later, we can have another WWII debate.