The Soviets played a more important role in winning WWII in Europe than the western allies

Hitler believed that if he successfully defeated Russia, the Britain would lose all hope and make peace. This was one of the many reasons for Operation Barbarossa. The only Battle that the Western Allies fought which had any effect on the outcome of the war was the Battle of Britain. If the western allies had lost at El Alamein, Hitler would still have won the war. The Battle of the Atlantic was minor, German U-boats sank many allies cargo ships headed for Britain, but even with this, Britain was still well supplied. D-day and the Battle of the Bulge both happened when it was clear Germany would lose the war. However there were three battles that the USSR fought that determined the outcome of the war. The first battle was the Battle of Moscow. This was the first time that Hitler was pushed back. The Battle of Moscow saved Russia from defeat, just like the Battle of Britain saved Britain from defeat. Then there was the Battle of Stalingrad. Had the Germans won this battle, they would have had unlimited oil. In addition, this would be almost certain death for Britain since from the Caucuses, Germany could capture the middle eastern oil fields and from there link up with Rommel in Egypt and strike at India. The Battle of Stalingrad saved both the USSR and the British empire. In addition to this, Stalingrad completely changed the course of the war. The final battle that had a huge effect on the outcome of the war, was the Battle of Kursk. This defeat for Germany ended any chances for Germany to win the war. Hitler split his offensive toward Stalingrad and the Caucus oil fields. This is not the reason he lost however. The reason Hitler lost was because he committed to a type of fighting that the German army was not built for. In the house to house fighting in Stalingrad, the Russians performed much better than the Germans. You also state that Hitler had sent half of his forces to take the Caucuses. This is not true. Hitler sent 75% of his forces which he deployed for Case Blue to attack Stalingrad and in addition to this, he repeatedly sent forces from the Caucuses to reinforce Stalingrad. Just because you have a split army when you attack, this doesn't mean your going to fail. The reason the Soviets won at Stalingrad was because of the major Soviet encirclement involving over a million men which completely trapped Paulus's 6th army inside the city. Who cares of the Germans controlled 90% of the city. They still lost and would have lost even if Hitler had brought a few more divisions from the Caucuses. The Soviets would simply launch counter offensives from the south, the same way as they did from the north. I would also like to say that if not for these offensives from the north which tied up most of the German army for a long time enabling the Russians to reinforce the city, the Soviets would have lost Stalingrad. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Stalin was not as brutal as Hitler. The number of people Stalin killed ranges from 20 million to 50 million. And Hitler did not kill 12 million people. He killed 6 million Poles, 6 million Ukrainians, 1 million Yugoslavians, and that's only a small portion of Europe. Altogether, 17 million Soviet civilians were killed by the Germans. Hitler killed some 30 million people. And there were many people who fought both the Russians and the Germans. American supplies were important since many Russian factories had been destroyed. On the other hand, many factories were moved east beyond the Urals. It is difficult to argue whether without these supplies the Soviets would have won or would have been defeated but what we can be sure about is that American supplies did not kill German soldiers; the Red Army did that. America fought the war in Europe with American supplies and Russian men. A war is won with men, supplies simply help. The military role of the western allies was insignificant. Even if you put Lend-Lease supplies on top of that, the role of the Soviet Union would still by more important. Germany was forced to delay Operation Barbarossa because Italy needed help defeating Greece and Germany also decided to invade Yugoslavia. There is no reason to speculate on what might happen if the Germans had invaded a few weeks earlier. The Soviets still would have had a good chance of winning. If Germany ever entered Moscow, they would be fighting the same type of battle that they did at Stalingrad. The Soviets had built very strong defenses on every street of Moscow. "I said America was Prepared for the Battle of the Bulge." The western allies were caught completely unprepared for the German offensive. "However, they were able to repel the strong German Offensive." That is not really surprising since the western allies had 3 million men and the German offensive consisted of 200,000 men. Saying that Hitler only lost in Russia due to his mistakes is complete nonsense. And also the winter was not the only reason Russia won the war. "The only thing that stopped the most (Con admits) Powerful army in the world was the Russian Winter and nothing the Generals did." <-----That is also a complete lie. Lets look at the western allies for a minute... Germany only lost the Battle of Britain because Hitler ordered the Germans planes to bomb London and other major cities instead of finishing of the RAF. The RAF was all but destroyed when Hitler changed tactics and began bombing cities. If the RAF was destroyed, Germany could then successfully invade England. No more D-Day then:( Had Hitler not made that mistake then his chances of winning the in the east would have been much higher. Then you talk about Hitlers mistakes. And i agree, his mistakes cost hundreds of thousands of casualties that could have been avoided. But what about Stalin's mistakes? His mistakes cost millions of pointless casualties for the Red Army. In 1938, he purged 8 of his best Generals and replaced them with party members who knew nothing about fighting. When WWII started, Stalin took personal control which resulted in 6 million Soldiers dying needlessly in 1941 alone. One main reason the Soviets won the Battle of Moscow was because Stalin gave control of the army to an experienced Marshal-Georgy Zhukov. It was this same marshal that successfully defeated the Germans at Stalingrad and at Kursk. Other experienced generals such as Konev, Vasilevsky, and Chuikov eventually took command of the Red Army and by late 1942 the Soviet War machine matched the effectiveness of the German army. So if you going to say that Hitler was responsible for those "4,400,000 deaths" then I might as well say Stalin's mistakes, being MUCH greater were responsible for 11 million Red Army deaths. But none of that really matters. The fact is that 4,400,000 (80%) of the Germans soldiers were shot by the Red Army, not by Hitler; just like 11 million Red Army soldiers were killed by German bullets, not by Stalin. So your argument that Hitler lost the war in the east due to his "mistakes" is complete nonsense. If somebody besides Stalin had been in charge, the Soviets could have defeated Germany alone with the army that they mobilized throughout WWII - 25 million. The Soviets were miles closer to Berlin than than the western allies were and Stalin purposely ordered the city to be encircled to keep the Americans and British out. "Operation Overlord was in need of most of the Allies forces, mainly American Forces which were tied up in the Pacific until they became available in 1944. This is why they waited to invade."<-----FALSE! They could have landed in France instead of Italy and still succeeded. in 1943: Germany had few men stationed in France. During the landings at Normandy, western allies lost 12,000 men. At the bulge, they lost only 80,000 men. The western allies could have succeeded in invading France with just a million men. So your saying that Stalin should have declared war on Germany and sided with Britain and France in 1939? The reason Stalin allowed the Germans to train on Soviet land was because he did not consider them to be the enemy. After all, lets remember who was fighting the Soviets in the Russian Civil War. The British and French did not want to see Russia become communist and gave aid to the white army. Even after Stalin died, the Soviets never forgot about that. Your new argument is alright... but my argument that I posted earlier on how the west allowed Fascism to spread stronger. You state that the Soviet Union planned to invade Europe...but lets stick to things that actually did happen. The western allies allowed Hitler to break the treaty of Versailles and rebuild the German army. The western allies allowed Germany to enslave Austria and Czechoslovakia and to send aid to Spain. Britain and France allowed Italy to conquer Albania and Ethiopia. Why did they let Germany do this? The answer is simple. They were too scared to fight another war, even if that war only involved 50,000 deaths. Instead they waited and instead of a small war happening, they allowed the largest war in history to kill tens of millions of people. Sure the Soviets signed a pact with Germany and invaded a few countries, but Britain and France were the ones who allowed the second world war to start. The west appeased Germany and only stopped doing so when it was too late. They signed an alliance with Poland in the case of a German invasion, and when the Germans did invaded, Britain and France did nothing. I agree, the Soviets also helped start WWII, but it was the western allies that allowed Germany to build tanks, planes, ships, right in front of their eyes. Sure a few tankers and pilots were trained in the east, but most of the German military was built because the western allies allowed it. Conclusion: the Soviets defeated most of the axis forces. The most they ever received in return were some supplies. Without the USSR, the outcome of the war would certainly have been different