Debate: Who was the hero of World War 2?
Side: U.S.S.R

"That is not the part of your statement I was disputing."Well, you did highlight that point, so I naturally assumed you had some beef with it."The average number of Axis troops in the Eastern Front throughout the course of the war was 1.9-2.0 million (3.7 million at its height),"First of all, I didn't say anything about Axis troops, I referred to the German army, secondly, Operation Barbarossa involved 3.9 million troops, not 3.7, keep in mind that for most of this (particularly at the beginning), the Soviet army actually battling the germans was no bigger than 4.5 million."while the Japanese Imperial Navy had 5.5 million at its 1945 height."So what, the German army was vastly superior to the Japanese, we are going to need to agree to a fundamental truism if we are to continue, I'll repeat what I said to raptor:"the German military was the greatest in the entire war, it surpassed all the other militaries in technological advancement, training, tactics, etc.,...etc.Even the average German soldier was in many cases worth 2 or 3 Allied soldiers. All of the countries fighting in WW2 were rightly terrified of the Germans, they were a unique fighting force for their time, and anybody who tries to equate them with the Japanese (as you and few others have) simply don't understand the power of the Wermarcht.I have seen fairly compelling arguments that the British navy was superior, and this is why Hitler never tried a ground invasion, there are also some question's about whether the Luftwaffe really were the greatest airforce fighting in the war, but at the very least, they were equal to the others.But, on the crucial issue, the actual army, and it's military hardware (tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, etc.) were way ahead of the others. If you doubt this, do some reading;-)""Both Russia and the United States ha to fight virtually single-handedly"No, this is really only true of the USSR."Are you seriously going to argue that an army of 3 million is more formidable than an advanced navy of 5.5 million?"Yes, because the Germans had the element of surprise when they attacked, also, German forces were vastly superior to anything the US faced. The US on the other hand were able to prepare, and attack on their own terms, and whether you want to beleive it or not, they had help."The fact that many Soviets died is irrelevant. 25% of USSR troops died compared to 2.5% of American troops. More dead troops does not mean more successful. That is absurd."Firstly, you're attacking a strawman, please show where in my last post I asserted that the number of Soviets who died proves anything, in my argument on the other side I presented the number of soviet casualities, this was intended to illustrate the scale of the death and destruction.Secondly, the number of Soviet troops that died does mean something, most US/Euro centric views take the opinion that the large number that perished shows how hopeless the USSR was, while this maybe true, it detracts from shwoing how determined they were. That fact that they could take such punishment and continue demonstrates an unbelievable will to victory. Think of France, they had a relatively powerful military, but when they saw what Germany did to Poland, they capitulated almost as soon the Germans arrived. I greatly respect and admire the Soviet response, not the generals who sent wave after wave of men to perish, but the men themselves, think about it, how many other nations would have responded that way? I can guarantee it wouldn't be many, most would have simply surrendered when the death and destruction became too severe. I doubt even if the US would have lasted very long if subjected to such an onslaught. "Don't you BS with this."Where exactly have I done that?"The USSR had 35,000,000 forces. 35 MILLION!"You know I would accuse of committing the logical fallacy "two wrongs don't make a right", but I never committed the original wrong, i.e. I never tried to assert: Greater no. of Soviet deaths = More successBut you have tried to assert: Greater number of Japanese forces = Harder battleANDLarge Soviet force = Easier VictoryNot that all of these statements are false, but for someone who falsely tried to criticise me for making this a numbers game, you sure are behaving hypocritically."And all of this (don't bother with semantics with numbers like this) to fight half of one war (eastern front)."I really don't know what will convince you. The Eastern front was the largest battle in military history, and it was fought by Germany and the USSR.The pacific theatre involved ferocious battles, but was in no way was comparable to the Eastern front, not in the least. This Western/US centric view of the war has dominated the populations collective conciousness since the war ended because of propaganda. Hollywood movies depicting the US as the saviors who road in on a white horse to save the day, with Britain by it's side, now that my friend is complete BS!!!I don't wish to diminish the US role, it was crucial, without US intervention the war would have taken on a very different complexion, no historian would argue otherwise.But if you ever get the chance to discuss the matter with a German who is knowledgeable on the subject (as I have on many occasions) I can guarantee you he/she will say some combination of the following:1. The war was decided on the Eastern front, i.e. ""The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat.""It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower."Source: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Industrial_ #Industrial_) %20output #Industrial_%20output)2. The Soviet's were in Poland and on their way to Berlin by the time a US soldier even saw a Nazi, there is strong reason to suggest this is as much about deafeating Hitler as it as about preventing the USSR from taking the whole of Europe when it became obvious they would beat Germany.3. The US entering the war accelerated Germany's demise, but didn't determine it, this can ony be said of Japans defeat.Now, if the US didn't enter, the Japanese may have free to invade the USSR, this is just speculation, also, depending on what estimate you beleive, the Chinese caused 70% of the total Japanese casualities in the war.Also, remember that Japan and Germany weren't exactly close allies, not the same way Italy and Germany were, and prior to the war, Germany were allied with China, and the failure of Japan to invade the USSR shows just how much one could rely on the other.