The Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2

"Anti-air vs tanks does not seem to be a major topic." I agree, the Germans would not need to use flak guns against tanks because the Germans had many tanks of their own. The most produced and widely used tank by Western Allies was the M4 Sherman. Although it could handle earlier versions of the German machines, it was outmatched by the Panther, much more the Tiger. "Flak gun fire was not very accurate and relied on mass fire to often hit targets by luck." I agree, but the Germans definitely had enough guns to mass their fire, especially over large and important cities. In fact, the Germans had over 15, 000 88mm flak guns. Without the USSR as a threat, all of THESE guns (along with many guns of other calibers) would be amassed on the Western front. http://histclo.com... "However, these high losses would only last a year, with the introduction of the P-51 in Feb of 1944 the losses dropped and the allies gained strong air superiorty over Europe and Germany.(in addition to range the P-51 was also a superior fighter to German BF109s and Fw190s)" The P-51 was effectively countered by the German Me-262. The Me-262 was faster and better armed. Because the war ended in 1945, Germany did not have enough time to get the production of the Me-262 into full swing, but as you said earlier, without Russia, the war would be raging longer, giving Germans time to produce more of these incredible machines. "The allies could still hope to achieve air superirorty over Germany without Russia by 1945." Yes, they could hope, but don't forget that by 1945 the war would be going on for several years and significant damage would be done to Ally air forces, and of course the production of the Me-262 and its relatives would be increased. "The soviets also typially suffered higher casualties than the germans throughout 1942 and 1943." I agree, but if the USSR did not suffer these casualties, then another Ally would have to take this damage (atleast a significant portion of it). Not every country would be able to take this damage and walk away victorious. "Overall, this means the US was responsible for neutralizing Italy, and helping keep Japan off the USSRs back" Although the Allies would defeat Germany's smaller allies, it would nevertheless be resistance and a nuisance, costing the Allies people, armor and most importantly, time. Time that Germany would very effectively use. The US did help keep Japan off the USSR's back, but the opposite can be said as well. The USSR liberated Japan-occupied Manchuria which cost Japan troops and resources that could be used to battle the US. "(there is also a lot of history of compassion between the German and allied armies in WWI, like the christmas day miracle)" The Germans weren't as against the Russians as the Russians were against the Germans. Germany not only broke a peace treaty, but simply threatened "the Motherland" and the survival of the Russian race. The amount of hatred towards the Germans simply would not allow Soviet troops do something like the Christmas day miracle. The general mindset of a Russian soldier towards the Germans was: This person is on my land, killing my friends, bombing my family and home, starving my people and must be destroyed. Although the view of an average US soldier was probably not this extreme, I doubt the pride and anger of the US soldiers would let them show mercy. This, of course, I cannot predict, but that is my theory. That even if the Germans would be willing to go for a compromise, the Allies might want to just destroy Germany. At the same time, the attitude of people towards their opponent changes completely when that opponent encroaches on their land. When the Russians were getting close to Berlin and when the battle already got to Berlin, even regular civilians were armed with Panzerfausts and sent to do as much damage as possible. This is a desperate act, but it shows that once the opponent gets on your land, there is no compromise, you just want him destroyed. Therefore, it is possible that after all, if the Germans would be getting near defeat, that they would not compromise (esp. with a leader like Hitler) but instead would do all to give the enemy a very, very hard time. "The Russians outnumbered the germans the entire war and suffered much worse losses" I agree, but a lot of times, it so happened that because the Russian forces were spread thin, the Russians could not muster enough troops at a time. So in comparison, it's like if there are 50 German soldiers and a total of 100 Russian soldiers, but the Russian soldiers are spread thin which meant that the 50 German soldiers would only be facing 10 Russian soldiers at a time. This happened not always, but very often. "Due to all the arguments I've listed, it becomes very hard, if not impossible, to see how the USSR might have won alone." I think you have misunderstood me. What I am arguing , is that, for example, if the UK did not participate in the war, the rest of the Allies would have a harder time, yes, but not as hard of a time as if the USSR was not participating. If any Ally was absent, the rest of the Allies would not have as much trouble as if the USSR was absent. I must admit, that your catch with my error in word choice was perfect. Thank you for the great debate, I appreciate debating with someone who definitely knows what they're talking about.