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

Rebuttals "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." I have grown tired of hearing this. In order for this disputed idea to be accepted into the debate any longer, it would have had to have a source. 'We knew that in two years' time, that is by the end of 1942, beginning of 1943, the English would be ready, the Americans would be ready, the Russians would be ready too, and then we would have to deal with all three of them at the same time.... We had to try to remove the greatest threat from the East.... At the time it seemed possible.' [1] This quote is from major Hubert Menzel. Here he quotes one of the real reasons that Germany attacked Russia. 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." Once again, no sources and nor did I say that numbers were the reason, but the initial force of the German Armies attacking Stalingrad would have made it fall. "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." From [1]: In the USSR, meantime, Stalin's ruthless approach to punishing ethnic collaborators in the Soviet Union meant that whole ethnic nations were forcibly exiled to Siberia as punishment for the small number of collaborators in their midst. One of the ethnic groups who suffered most were the Kalmyks from the steppe south of Stalingrad. Stalin ordered every ethnic Kalmyk, including women and children, to be 'relocated' to even more remote regions of the Soviet Union. Whole families were crammed onto insanitary transport trains. Many didn't survive the long journey. Officially, 93,000 Kalmyks, 68,000 Karachai people, 500,000 Chechens, 340,000 Balkars and 180,000 Tartars were deported. The figures are almost certainly underestimates." All of that for just a small number of collaborators in their midst. This is disregarding the purge of the 30's and those he caused to die by not allowing civilians to leave Stalingrad. In Moscow, 8000 Civilians were executed for being "cowardly"[1]. So, we see that Stalin was a worse man and more brutal to his own civilians than Hitler ever was. To kill 50 million people compared to 30 million(both of these numbers unknown due to lack of sources!) is still outrageously more brutal. "American supplies were important since many Russian factories had been destroyed. On the other hand, many factories were moved east beyond the Urals." Once again, no sources. However, he cedes to the point that American was important to Russia in the early stages of the war to the East, arguably the most decisive stage of the Eastern war. "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." This delay saved Russia and was caused by American and British attacks in the African Front causing Italy the need to cry for help. It was still a mistake by Hitler to help this ally as it would have been easier to defend Italy from invasion rather than fight the allies in the desert. The western allies were caught completely unprepared for the German offensive. No sources, nothing. However, it doesn't matter because this battle destroyed the reserves of Germany: "The Ardennes battle drives home the lesson that a large-scale offensive by massed armour has no hope of success against an enemy who enjoys supreme command of the air. Our precious reserves had been expended, and nothing was available to ward off the impending catastrophe in the east." [2] "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." This is wrong. Even if the Germans had gained air superiority, the Royal Navy still would have posed a threat. "Hitler did in fact order preparations to be made for an invasion of England, but he was always half-hearted in his desire to mount a large seaborne landing. Germany, unlike Britain, was not a sea power and the Channel was a formidable obstacle. Even if air superiority could be gained, there remained the powerful British Navy. And there was another, ideological, reason why Hitler was not fully committed to invading Britain. For him, it would have been a distraction. Britain contained neither the space, nor the raw materials, that he believed the new German Empire needed." " 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." Pro, they were very afraid to enter another war, as all nations should be. They were in the middle of depressions, their people were still grieving over the loss of their men in World War 1, and they had only just gotten their industry back in working order. Besides this, there was view that was slowly being accepted that in WW1, Wilson's 14 points should have been used and the world was to rough on Germany. Though the following policy of Appeasement allowed Hitler to grow strong, it was the Russians who helped to make him strong. They helped invade Poland, round up Jews and guerrilla fighters, as well as allowing them to train on Soviet land and even trained German pilots! The West may have allowed the war to happen, but Russia was the one responsible for enabling it to happen and did it all in self-interest. This is not the country that deserves 100% credit for helping finish the war when it deserves at least 50% credit in starting the war. Conclusion Pro simply asserts many of his points without backing them up with evidence or sources. He fails to show how Hitler's mistakes could not have caused the Russian victory. Hitler refused to listen to his generals in most cases and because of this lost the war. Also, everything Russia was able to do was because the West was able to keep Hitler's forces occupied in Africa and later in France. Plus the benefits of the American aid to Soviet Russia was fundamental in stopping the German advance. In all, The West was just as important to the end of the war as Soviet Russia was. Sources 1) http://www.bbc.co.uk... 2) http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...