Best/Worst Presidents

[rocketpig]

bouzane said:

rocketpig said:

bouzane said:
Britain didn't contribute anything meaningful to the Front with Japan either so what's your point? Although it is worth mentioning that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria saw the Soviets killing or capturing over 700,000 Japanese troops. Also, Romania, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain all contributed to the Eastern Front. The Italians lost almost all of the 100,000 troops that they provided for the Siege of Stalingrad alone. If you factor in Manchuria the Soviets inflicted over 10.6 million casualties upon the Axis, again, more than all other Allies combined.

The Soviets invaded Manchuria after America had dropped two nuclear devices on the home island. They were picking up scraps and trying to grab land, nothing more.

The vast, vast majority of Axis casualties, in terms of aircraft, vehicles and manpower were inflicted by the USSR. Almost the entire Wehrmacht was eliminated fighting the Soviets. Additionally, the Battle of Berlin was won by the Soviet Union with no other Allies present with the exception of approximately 200,000 Polish soldiers. There is no logical conclusion other than the understanding that the Soviet Union contributed more to the war effort than all other Allies combined. Over nine out of ten German casualties as well as millions of other Axis losses, the most significant defeat of the Luftwaffe, the failure of the Blitzkrieg and the successful invasion of Berlin.

Your numbers seemed high to me. I looked into it and according to Wikipedia, Germany lost ~5.5m soldiers to military conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Anyway, I'm not arguing whether the USSR served the majority of casualties in the war. I'm simply refuting your premise that they singled-handedly defeated the Axis powers despite not having meaningful conflict with Japan.