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

"you've cleverly ..inserting the word "army" before "strength"- I agree a countries "strength" is the economic plus the army plus the natural resources. But in world WAR 2 ( theirs that word coming back) since it is a war i think it is appropriate to say the main "strength" of a country in a WAR should be based mainly on its army. What? "diplomatic" Luxemburg has a better diplomatic sis-tam than North Korea. Is Luxemburg stronger than north Korea? defiantly not. "Remember, World War II was a TOTAL war. Key word: TOTAL. "- key word TOTAL- If a country is committed to "total war" it means 100% of the people were committing 100% of effort to the war. What about when the soldiers are sleeping? or were 100% of the world population committed to war? In Brazil was little Carlos living in a favela in Rio committed 100% to beating Nazi Germany? NO world war 2 was not a "Total war" and the USA was as far away from "total war as it could get". "According to this source (http://www.nationalww2museum.org......), peak military strength of the USSR was not much larger than the USA. "- There are like 5 sources that state the sizes of the ww2 armies. The USSRs army size is ranged from about 13millon to 24million and the US military is ranged from about 8mllion to 12million. Now u see the extrema biased, you picked the smallest number for the USSR and the smallest from the USSR. so to sum up: on average: USA= 10,000,000 and the USSR had 17,000,000 - is just one (http://www.angelfire.com...) "Meanwhile, the US had ... industry."- yes a bigger navy and air force but lets just say the US air force is equal to say 100? and USSR is equal to say 70? BUT in tank force the USSR is like 100 and he USA is like 50 and tanks are more important than an air force. Also u forget to meson the USSR had far more artillery, Missile launchers, tanks, men and armored vehicles. "1,200 feet in diameter"- i bet the soviets would compact all there tanks up in a huddle and just wait for the nuke to come. Also MURICA mite have not even been able to get the Russian forces they mite have been taken out by Russia`s great anti air defense (they dropped them of planes). Or would the Americans drop the nukes on the front lines destroying both sides? "Japan was not on the brink of surrender,"- well it had ALL READY ASKED THE AMERICANS to let it surrender unconditionally so yes it was. But the Americans were like HOW DARE THOSE DIRTY JAPS BOMB OUR HARBOR! WE WONT TAKE THIS SURRENDER WE WOULD RATHER FIRE BOMB THERE CITY'S A BIT MORE!- MURICA. "feared a massive amphibious invasion of the Japanese homeland was the only way to end the war"- or i dont know just wait a month or 2 for the soviets to do it for them? or for the country to starve? "Stalin was afraid of Japan"- well he invaded it.... Stalin just fought Nazi Germany about 3X stronger than Japan. The agreement between the USA/USSR the soviets were to help in Japan. 90 days after VE day (the soviets invaded Manchurian 90 days after VE day) Strange the soviets did not want to attack japan after loosing 25,000,000 people why would they hesitate declaring war on another power? (did not even hesitate). Also the soviets took as much land of japan in like 2 weeks as the Americans took in like 1 year. Soviet efficiency- 1 Manchuria/20 days US efficiency- 1 Manchuria/1 year NOT GOOD (for all that "strength" i would expect more "Without a large navy or airforce"- according to u the USA had the greatest air force/navy in the world and look at there horrific speed of advance. So navy/air force can be that important. "transporting and supplying"- Russia is like a massif rail road and practically BORDERS JAPAN. It would be easy for them. The soviets wouldn't need so much ships to invade every tiny island 1 by 1 like the USA they would just go straight to Japan. " sort of still remember the US bailing out the USSR and UK"- the USA did not give that much stuff to Russia, it gave a bit but not that much. so u cant just say everything in the USSR done well because the USA supplied it. "France and Italy."- Italy debating was a problem to Germany and not an asset and by France i am guessing u mean D-day were the Americans eventually sped the war up by 2 weeks and then claimed they done half the work. "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" yes but all this is like 1% of Russia`s supply's and also over half of this was not even needed! as it was send after Stalingrad when the soviets had won. "fighting 3 wars"- words cant express the anger i am in about that statement. Italy- Italian forces were mainly defeated by the British by the time America jumped in to save the day Italy had retreated out of Africa and all the Americans done on that "front" was invade VICHY FRANCE a puppet governments COLONY witch was happy to surrender to the US. Germany-well this front lasted under 2 years and sped the war up by 2 weeks so NO. Japan- YES but i am sorry that's only 1 war not 3. Even japan America was helped by Australia/china heavily and even the dun dun dun soviets. "Diverting 1,500,000 German troops....... super heavy tanks. "- Diverting not killing. Super weapons? please u think Germany could have beet Russia back 1000s of KM by producing some kind of "heavy tank"? the Germans did invent some "super weapons" but they done nothing to slow ether he US or USSR. "kill/death ratio"- K/D? this is not COD and this argument is not about the what u think the "K/D ratio" was it is about the countries strength. and the K/D ratios you recall from your un sourced collage days is irreverent? Its like me saying i recall from the old oxford days that the Soviets had 1billon planes-its a complete lie but i could still say it. "Means more recruits and a much larger economy needed to generate wealth and materials."- but if it did mean those things why now a days does North Korea have more men in its army than the USA? the USA has more "available man power". note- when u say "available man power" do u count the millions of quoter toners in America or not? "Where's your atomic bomb?"- My atomic bomb? I dot have any at the time... Or do u mean ww2 soviet unions atomic bombs?- well 1 atomic bomb is unrelated to weapon tech but if u want to go off topic fine. "USA can build tanks, planes, ships and equip soldiers faster than the USSR can. "- well if like u say American economic was 1 billion times as beneficent as everyone else s why did they they have all the tanks? NO the soviets were making T-34s at the fasted rate ever in history so no u are wrong. OK i don't have enough space left to disprove all your points so i will bullet point whats wrong with each one: -NO it dose not, done -u said why the US needed a navy not Russia- OF TOPIC -Well it did take out Nazi Germany so ye it worked pretty well. -the Brits done the same thing in ww1- its not evil its discipline and also needed when up Agnese the Nazis- (yes Stalin is evil but so was Trooman-250,000 innocent lives to show of a weapon) -agreed Russia had a bad navy case closed -Hitler could not retreat because the Germans were encircled. -As u can see by my last source when the Yalta conference took place Russia was on top of Berlin while the US had just penetrated Germany. -but as agreed they did not have a STRONG NAVY -4 sources were used to show all points -Total USSR armored vehicles - 12,000 = still a lot more than the US -covered -i mean will to fight for there country. not morels- sorry i meant morale -navy= BAD and amazon.com is an irrelevant source -sorry for the long list but i ran out sources: http://www.angelfire.com... Century of war fair- DVD collection