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

but we are not talking about countries production rates we are talking about there STRENGTH and since its a war there ARMY STRENGTH... WAR, key word.Yes. Its interesting that you've made a debate on the merits of gross national power (your title for instance asks us to determine the "strongest country of WWII") but now you've cleverly managed to shift the goal posts by most ingeniously inserting the word "army" before "strength" and then haughtily proclaiming to your opponent that real national strength in World War II was only about the size of one's ground forces - thereby fulfilling your BOP and winning this debate... As if economic, political, and diplomatic might were not also decisive factors from 1939-1945. Remember, World War II was a TOTAL war. Key word: TOTAL. we are talking about there STRENGTH and since its a war there ARMY STRENGTH. According to this source (http://www.nationalww2museum.org...), peak military strength of the USSR was not much larger than the USA. 12,500,000 - USSR. 12,364,000 - USA Meanwhile, the US had a much larger Navy, Air Force, and plenty of more industry. SO what 3 nukes what a super power. i think maybe 50,000 tanks could pay up for 3 nukes. The atomic bomb that detonated over Hiroshima had a mushroom cloud 1,200 feet in diameter and a blast temperature of over 10,830 °F, making the initial fireball hotter than the surface of the Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org...). With a destructive force equal to approximately 15 kilotons of TNT, the bomb's explosion vaporized everything within one to two miles of ground zero; leaving radioactive dust, an EMP burst, and 90% of the city destroyed in its wake. 120,000 total people died from one bomb, dropped by one plane. 50,000 tanks will not save you. Also they used 2 nukes on an all ready destroyed country on the brink of surrender. Japan was not on the brink of surrender, to do so would have been dishonorable. But as suicidal Kamikaze tactics demonstrated, Japan was fully prepared to fight to the last man. Why did they use them? 1 REASON the US was scared by the fact the soviets had declared war on Japan and they were FAR more efficient. Because Japan was NOT on the brink of surrender and US policymakers feared a massive amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland was the only way to end the war. Meanwhile the first atomic bomb was dropped on August 6th, 1945, the Soviet Union did not declare war on Japan until the 8th. Seems to me then that it is more likely that Stalin was afraid of Japan or that you have some explaining to do.USSR could have easily took Japan ,a lot quicker than the US. Do explain. Without a large navy or airforce, the USSR would a difficult transporting and supplying the literally millions of troops that would be required to occupy and pacify the Japanese homeland. what the noob did the Americans do? beat a nation that has been at war for 7 years? with the help of china,Australia and a lot other countries. I sort of still remember the US bailing out the USSR and UK with Lend-Lease. Also something about helping Stalin with a second front in France and Italy. "US supplies to the Soviet Union"- they sent them like 0.1% of porridge for like 1 year. According to Wiki, American Lend-Lease to the USSR amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles, 11,400 aircraft, and 1.75 million tons of food. Which averages out to roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment.(http://en.wikipedia.org...) May i remind you the reason why Russia needed supplies was because they were FIGHTING A WAR! not just attacking a country across an ocean! May I remind you that America was fighting 3 wars (Germany, Italy, and Japan) on multiple fronts on four different continents and across two different oceans. All d day (second front) done was what? Maybe helped end the war a couple of weeks earlier. Diverting 1,500,000 German troops from the eastern front, accomplishing the complete destruction of the German Luftwaffe and oil industry (through allied bombing), and ending the war just in time before Germany had the chance to develop "wunderwaffe" weapons; including fighter jets, rail guns, ballistic missiles, amerika bombers, and super heavy tanks. The soviets had been SUCCESSFULLY pushing the Germans back for over a year... I sort of remember from my college days that the kill/death ratio of the USSR on the Eastern Front was something like 1 German killed for every 13 Russians. Doesn't sound like the Red Army was very efficient (according to my professors anyway). "Total Available Manpower"-means nothingMeans more recruits and a much larger economy needed to generate wealth and materials. "Better Weaponry & Technology "- completely bi est opinion. Where's your atomic bomb? "Superior Wartime Economy "- its a war i think your ARMY is more important. I don't understand your point here. The USA can build tanks, planes, ships and equip soldiers faster than the USSR can. This is not 1870 the navy doesn't matter So control of the commons and close to 70% of the world's commerce - including lend-lease supplies to USSR and UK doesn't matter? and Russia did not need a navy because it is surrounded by ice. The USSR needed the American navy in order to transport 17.5 million tons of military equipment requested by the Russians for lend lease. " Overall Leadership" Well of topic, opinion Not an opinion. The Russian military doctrine of Deep Battle was a meat grinder concept that needlessly threw away lives (often through human wave tactics) by attacking head on all fronts in order to force a breach. and Stalin may have been evil but new how to win a war- Also harry Trooman did drop 2 nukes killing 250,000 Innocent civilians with 2 bombs with offensive names.- GREAT LEADER SHIP. Does this not make u evil? Stalin issued Stavka Directive No.1919 - which made it legal for Soviet commissars to fire on their own troops if they attempted to run away from the fighting. Does firing on your own troops not make Stalin evil? unlike the US it couldn't just choose what wars it would look best in. The US was an isolationist country wanting to stay out of WWII, yet Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Italy and Germany declared war on the US afterwards. i thought the Russian navy was small and terrible? That is the point I was trying to make. I'm not the one claiming that the Russians had a powerful navy. I see you don't know what happened in Stalingrad. The Russian encircled the city witch led to 1 million Germans being killed.Made possible because Hitler refused to order a retreat. I see you don't know what happened at Stalingrad. well the soviets surrounded the city so Rosavlet didn't have much "agreeing" to do. Yalta took place two months prior to the Battle of Berlin. why would Russia have air craft carriers it had air bases? They would if they ever had a strong navy. conclusion: i proved 90% of your facts wrong so i think that makes me the winner. And yet you have failed effectively use sources throughout this entire debate. Russian wins at: Tanks, Armored vehicles 12,000 of which were loaned to the USSR by Lend-Lease http://en.wikipedia.org.... army size.. and a much bigger army.Redundant. But the USSR's overall size was not much bigger. Please refer back to the original numbers I posted. moral Stavka Directive No.1919 and Stalin's approval for the Rape of Berlin do not prove any moral standing for the Red Army. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) navy's became useless after ww1. http://www.amazon.com...^^Page 1-519 talks about the 21st century, globalization, modern warfare, and the role of seapower.