Not completely out of line, some are simply misconceptions, some aren't even yours, some have been explained already. Commenting on Easter front only of which I most aware of understandably:

- However, it was the Soviet campaign that later showed Germany was beatable (Stalingrad and all the later battles to come).
>> Moscow Offensive is apparently ignored, though it's debatable depending on the propagandistic effect you're expecting.

- Operation Barbarossa went off pretty well for the Germans at first.  The first winter hindered their progress (with other winters to follow that were even worse) but it wasn't till about the time of Stalingrad and closing near Moscow did the Germans start to falter.
>> Barbarossa plan considered the Arkhangelsk-Volga-Astrakahn line reachable within 3 months tops, thus Babarossa was a failed operation by the end of September, 1941 if not earlier, winter has nothing to do with it.

- If it were not for America supporting Russia and Britian through lend lease, and their eventual involvment in the European theater, neither Russia nor Britian would of been able to win.
>> Lend-lease never was big for Soviet Union until very late of 1943, partly due to Germans disrupting transit routes, partly due to modest size of the help, which grow bigger with the success of Red Army, namely third protocol deliveries. Not to argue lend-lease importance, but strategic initative was on the side of the Soviets since early 1943, so no, it seems like Soviet Union would have won without lend-lease. Britain was more dependant on it, receiving about 2/3 of lend-lease.

- You had Germany and the marvels they made turning the war...STG-44 being one of my favorite, which changed the face of small arms for the next century... I was actually trying to find an original weapon made by the Russians and I came up with the AK-47. After looking at the Wiki page on the AK-47 it can be pulled from there that they really were just copying the assault rifle idea mainly from Germany with their StG44.
>> StG 44 and AK-47 have little in common aside from the fact both of them are assault rifles, better explained by mrstickball.

- "The origins of the T-34 stretched back to early 1930s, when Red Army planners supported a prototype tank designed by the American J. Walter Christie, its innovative suspension siring a series of Soviet BTs, or "Fast Tanks."  Industrial legend has it that Christie's designs embodied most of the advances that later made the T-34 such a superior machine, but Soviet engineers vastly improved everything."  - Soul of the Sword. Just thought to throw the last paragraph out there.  While the T-34 can't be entirely credited to J. Walter Christie he did show them in the right direction.
>> Spring suspension was quickly abandoned after small pre-serial production run, all T-34 starting 1941 have used torsion bar suspension as well as all Soviet tanks and majority MBTs in the world since then.

- That is the key. The initial stages totally destroyed Russian defenses. Unfortunately, Hitler made the huge tactical blunder of supressing the Ukranians that had suffered immensely under the Soviets. Rather than use their help against the Russians, he treated them like the Jews and Gypsies, which meant that man and materiel was diverted to supress them instead of getting them to help fight the Russians.
>> Kriegsgerichtsbarkeitserlass (hope I spell it right) included entire territory where Operation Barbarossa was in effect, so pretty much all have been treated the same, no surprises. No sure what exactly Soviets did to Ukrainians though, UkSSR has always been the its favourite child for Soviet Union.

- Another interesting group were the Russian Cossacks during WW2.  I did a little reading up on them and while most fought with Germany there were a few that remained loyal to Russia/Soviet Union (although it states they weren't really 100% Cossack units).
>> Not even looking at numbers, seems very unlikely, though debatable depending on the definition of cossack.

- Interesting fact is that Stalin killed more people than Hitler.
>> Regardless of alleged crimes, that's simply not true.

Wow you dug up some old quotes of mine.  I don't have time to rebuke or admit wrongful thinking right now.  However, with the last quote about Stalin vs Hitler who killed more...  I still believe Stalin killed more but both were guilty of mass murder.  It is pretty depressing just reading this article when trying to find out again on my own.  

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/?pagination=false

I was going to put a quote from that link but after reading link I believe it deserves an in depth look. 

You did bring up some quotes that I will have to further look into.  One can easily fall into the hands of propaganda.  I try to view WW2 without personal bias.  However, being from USA I can't dismiss the possibility of being influenced by false information regarding WW2.  I will look further into all topics you have brought up.

Americans are guilty of mass murder, hence the bombings of Japan and Dresden, which both had questionable military meaning, but I somehow never though of comparing them to Nazis or even Japanese. These are very different matters, in order of magnitude different.

In the article you're quoting I didn't mange to find a single reference, I'm using materials that are quoting NKVD records directly, e.g. Zemskov V.N. one of the few who had access to TsGAOR archive in the 1980s (State's Archive of Russian Federation as of today).

wanted to come in here and say something, but there are clearly more knowledgeable people around here...

because the japanese weren't so much trying to stop the bombings... as they were kill americans.  You've got the motivations wrong.

The US burns a Japanese city to the ground, but loses 5-6 planes in the process.  That's what the japanse wanted if you read direct japanese sources at the time.  They simply wanted to grind the US down, trading thousands of lives for small amounts of american ones.

When it's just 1 bomb?  That makes it near impossible to ensure any casualties.

Attrition tactics became usless... and that was all they had.

No offense... but this post doesn't seem to be based on any actual knowledge or researc.

A) Again, the US did target military targets.  They were IN the cities... as military bases tend to be when your a tiny country overflowing with population and in need of lots of farmland.

B) The studies on the aftereffects of nuclear radiation show that genetically there were no aftereffects passed on to the descendents of the Nuclear attacks.

http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html

There have been tons of studies done... and nothing has been found.

Every country has their bastard moment or notorious leader. Stalin sent thousands to their deaths in the gulags and betrayed his former party members like Trotsky. Hitler nearly wiped out the Jewish, Roma and Slavic communities in Europe. America flattened 2 cities killing over 100,000 people. The Japanese treated Koreans and Chinese like slaves. While, later on Mao was responsible for millions of people starving due to his crazy policies. Us Brits used to abduct people and turn them into slaves 1000's of miles away from home and make huge profits from it. I know i went away from World War 2 abit but we can't act like any country is good anymore. We have all done something bad to either our own people or someone's else people. We all have some guilt

Comparing the deaths America caused in WW II air strikes versus the crimes of Stalin after the war (as in outside of a conflict) and the holocaust? That's laughable. The difference was even though the Americans bombed civilian  inhabited cities there was a war going on. On the other hand Hitler was wiping out jews in camps not because they were at war with Germany but because of his obsession with wiping out a whole people and Stalin and Mao killed millions of political rivals, critics, suspicious people and people they were paranoid about (whether or not they actually took up arms or committed an act against tbe government). 

Ya......that is just wrong.

Japan had something called honor and didn't believe in surrender.

But when the enemy has a weapon that destroys 2 of your cities in one moment........you tend to rethink your position on continuing the war.

86 cities had already been partially or mostly wiped out with regular air strikes before the atom bombs were ever used.