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

I did, but I shouldn't because most of them are WRONG. Pro states:" 80% of the German forces were destroyed in the east. " It's false. 80% of the German forces were in the Eastern Front in June 1942, but they weren't all destroyed. Second, in 1943 the 63% of the German forces were in the East, so state that the soviets destroyed 80% of the German military force is wrong because this isn't even the percentage of it's forces in the East. I would like to know where Pro got this information. (1) At one point Pro starts talking about deaths. He gives me the German deaths during the Battle of France and Operation Barbarosa. Then he demands me to compare the statistics. I don't want to lose time on this issue. because I already showed that the German deaths in the East weren't at the percentage he thought they were. And I would like to raise the point that during the German invasion of Russia both sides suffered with the winter, diseases and famine, which I took the lives of many soldiers. (2) Now, to support my arguments that the Western Allies had a greater role in defeating the Germans than the USSR.1. MobilizationAlthough I have to admit that the men mobilized by the USSR during the war was very impressive, it does not beat the number of the Western Allies. The Soviet Union mobilized 20 million men, while the major Western countries(USA, UK and France, not counting colonies) mobilized 21.69 million men. (3)2. Weapon's production(1941-1945)(4)The United States and the United Kingdom produced way more war weapon's than the USSR. I'm talking about aircrafts, large vessels and tanks produced by this countries during the period of 1941-1945. AircraftsDuring this period the United Stated produced 306182 aircrafts; Great Britain 108560; and the USSR 137271. By the way, the United States sent 14795 aircrafts to the Soviet Union during the war. Large VesselsThe United States produced 6958; the UK 951; and the Soviet Union only 128. I admit that the Soviets didn't fight much with the Germans on the sea, but the West did. Tanks This one the Soviets produced the most, but not as much as the United States and the United Kingdom together. USA, 78079; UK, 28028; USSR; 994883. Battles My opponent argues that the battles won by the Soviets were more important and caused more damage to the Germans than those won by the West. He starts with Moscow. "The defense of Moscow in late 1941 guaranteed that the Germans couldn't win the war in 1941. "Germans didn't win the battle, but the Soviets did not play a decisive role on defeating them. The lack of German planning for the operation and the extremely cold winter contributed more for the German failure on taking Moscow than the Red Army. The cold temperatures made the German soldiers freeze, as neither their close or their equipment were made for the cold Russian winter. (5) Nazi stupidity and mother nature saved the USSR, not the Soviets. "The campaign in the south (Case Blue) leading up to the battle of Stalingrad and the battle of Stalingrad itself sealed Germany's fate, there was no way that it could win the war after its crushing defeat at Stalingrad in which it lost all of 6th Army, part of 4th Panzer Army and a great amount of Romanian, Hungarian and Italian forces. Stalingrad wrapped up in early February 1943. From that point on Germany couldn't win the war. "Now he talks about Stalingrad. I agree that Stalingrad was a decisive battle but why from that point on Germany couldn't win the war? I mean, after the Nazis defeating the French it would be reasonable to think, by his logic, that the Allies wouldn't win. "It tried a much smaller offensive in the summer of 1943 to try to pinch off the Kursk salient however Germany failed losing most of its remaining armored units in the process. After that it was all downhill for Germany. ""During Kursk? The Western Allies were playing fiddle in Sicily. "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. (6)(7) I would like to state again that the border shared between Germany and the Soviet Union made it easier for the Soviets to fight against the Germans, but my opponent apparently don't see this as a major point. "Britain promised to open a second front in 1942, yet failed to do so. Then Churchill said he would open a second front in France in 1943, and once again failed to do so. "I'm sorry but your sources don't mention nothing about this. "I would also like to remind Con that the reason the Middle Eastern oil fields did not fall was because the Soviets did not allow von Kleist to break through the Caucuses and into the Middle East. "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. (8)I would like to finish this round by responding to my opponent critic that my source did not support my stated arguments. For your information, yes they do and I was very specific, while your sources from the first round didn't support nothing. sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(World_War_II) #Forces2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3 David Jordan and Andrew Wiest, "Atlas of World War 2", page 248-2494 idem5 . http://en.wikipedia.org...6 David Jordan and Andrew Wiest, "Atlas of World War 2", page 1197. http://en.wikipedia.org...8 David Jordan and Andrew Wiest, "Atlas of World War 2", page 67