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

1." Any of the Allies could have participated in this meat grinder, with LESS casualties than the Red Army suffered." You don't get points for what you could have done but for what you actually did. The point of the matter is that the USSR did participate in the "meat grinder" which killed a lot more Germans than the Western front, Italian and North African campaigns did combined. 18,594(1) Germans died during the entire 3 year North Africa campaign. 750,000 Axis soldiers died at Stalingrad alone. 2. "The Allies allowed Russia to conquer Berlin because they didn't want to lose the lives of their soldiers. The Red Army was also racing into Berlin to capture nuclear programs and research, as your source states. However, this is all irrelevant. If the Red Army hadn't of stormed Berlin, the other Allies simply would." Yet again it comes down to who actually did it. The Soviets were the ones to raise their flag over Berlin due to the fact they were actually the ones to take it. 3. "Russia simply got attacked, and later repelled the attack. They did nothing else of significance, and would have worked with Germany if it wasn't for Germany going back on their word! Meanwhile, the USA and Britain were making decisive victories and conquering Nazi territory." The USSR got invaded by over 80% of the German army. From December 1941 to May 1945 the Soviets were able to take 1,625 miles killing 2.8 million German soldiers. The Axis of Germany and Italy took 836,606 casualties over the entire Western front between June 6th 44 and May 1945. That's less casualties than simply combing the two battles of Kursk and Stalingrad. Both of these happened before USA or Britain had even set foot on Europe since the embarrassment of the battle of France. Not a single allied Battle on the Western front was significant as it was obvious that the Nazis were already emphatically losing on the Eastern front by June 6th 1944. 4."By the time that Russia reached into inner Europe, basically out of the Soviet Union, all major armies of Germany's were defeated, Italy was rendered useless, and the bulk of the fighting was going on in the West, all thanks to USA and Britain." The Russians were out of Russia on the 9th of September. Which is by my calculation a good 8 months before the Allies land in Northern France. Britain and the United States had only been fighting in Europe a rather small scale operation in Italy for 2 months before this. It is estimated that between September 1943 and April 1945 some 60,000 Allied and 50,000 German soldiers died in Italy. It's likely that some 5,000 Germans had died before the Soviets got out of Russia. Really sounds like America and Britain were doing the bulk of the fighting. In 1944 157 German divisions were located on the Eastern front; 44 were in France and Belgium. 85% of German casualties happening on the Eastern front tells you where the brunt of the fighting took place. 5. "You basically admit that most of Germany's failures are because of Germany, not her opponent's" I used the phrase,"you could say', my point is that an Allied victory and an Axis defeat are not mutually exclusive. Infact they are simply two sides of the same coin. Hitler made mistakes everywhere but in large parts it was still down to the individual powers to beat Hitler. Even after 1941 where Germany has experienced the cold combined with the Soviet counter attack there were still millions of Axis soldiers in the Soviet Union to push back and destroy. 6. "The point I am trying to make is that Stalin's army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and unable to handle the Germans. So many Germans were killed in the Easy due to the massive mistake Hitler made in sending them." I don't quite understand what you are stating here. At the end of the day the Soviets killed far more men than Britain and the USA did combined. Even if you were to assume 1 million died of cold( the number is probably less than 100,000) more Germans would still have been killed directly by the Soviets than were by the USA and Britain. 7. "Still, they were blockaded by the Germans and bombed continuously. They still managed to get forces to disrupt Italian activities, helping win the war in Europe." No one in their right mind could state that Britain suffered more than the USSR did from WW2. Hitler himself stated concerning Italy ,"Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere.,". As mentioned earlier the North Africa campaign was minuscule to the Eastern front in terms of casualties and the territory is not in Eastern Europe. The 3 year campaign did nothing to decide who would win WW2. 8. "It's clear here that USSR was more responsible for the start of this horrible war, thus making it impossible for them to be considered pivotal in winning it. They get no credit since they were eager to have the war." The Soviet Union were attacked. Stalin was a huge proponent if socialism in one country and due to purges and wanting to further industrialize Russia did not want a war. Infact of all the major powers in 1939 Stalin was probably the one least interested in war. Britain declared war on Germany, USA also got involved in a war with Germany despite being invaded. By the time the Soviets had pushed the German's out they had lost over 15 million people and so I think its understandable to want unconditional surrender when its clear you're going to win, as it was for the Soviet Union before D-Day had even been launched. Britain and France's 4 year plans made them eager to wage a war in 1939(3) as they would not be able to rearm for any longer. Britain chose war, the USSR did not. The only time Soviets trained Germans was from the treaty of Rapallo, which was in 1922. A full 9 years before Hitler came to power and only just as Stalin had come to power. It was necessary to enter into a non-aggression pact with Germany to buy time, since the Soviet Union was not in a position to fight a war in 1939, and needed at least three years to prepare. The point I was making about the Hossbach Memorandum was that Hitler already planned in 1937 to be at war and by August 1939 it was clear that war was going to break out. Nazi-Soviet relations had no effect on the war starting. 9. "They eliminated the Italians from helping the Nazi's, freed the French people, broke through the German's defenses and cleared the Nazi troops that were bombarding Britain. This, compared to Russia just having a giant death fest with Germany." That's the point. The Soviets fought an absolutely brutal war with the Nazis. The majority of Nazi soldiers and equipment involved in a huge war of attrition. The allies landed in 1944 against the least experienced members of the German army of which they outnumber over 3-1, to easy victories, which essentially simply sped up the conclusion of the war. In conclusion As I have stated many times, and con has not refuted, the vast majority of German soldiers and equipment was taken out by the Soviets during WW2. They took the most land and every year from 1941 onwards the majority of German divisions were facing the Soviets. Nazi Germany never could have won WWII against the Soviet Union, as Germany's population of about 80 million could not subdue the Soviet population of over 150 million and all its vast resources in Asia. It might have taken until 1946-48, but eventually the Soviets would have conquered the Nazi empire and most of Europe would have fallen under Soviet control. The world would have traded one bloody totalitarian dictator for another. It was not German failure but Soviet perseverance that won the war. Doing far more in Europe than Britain or America did. The Germans were in full retreat on the Eastern Front by D-Day. The Soviets received the most concessions in the post WW2 world due to having done the most to win WW2. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.angelfire.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...