The Surly Cantrian wrote:Don't underestimate Russia just because of the way America has portrayed them. Under the "Mother Russia" idea, the Russians were loyal by and large. And don't forget they were the first to enter Berlin, without America's help.
To put American contribution to WW2 in persepective... Surly is pretty right. The first serious operation by any American forces was the invasion of Northern Africa in the summer of 1943; this was half-British too though. It forced the nazi's to occupy Vichy France, which had cooperated to some extent with them up till then, but conquering Algeria wasn't exactly a major contribution to victory; however Hitler chose to reinforce Tunesia big time, ending up in the surrender of all the reinforcements he sent there - a severe blunder since they lacked overseas supply due to Allied control over the Mediterranean seas and skies. Again, this operation was about half-British / half-American. By the time the next major operation came around, the Normandy invasion in 1944, the Soviets were shredding the German army group Center in the Ukraine at the same time, taking hundreds of thousands PoW's, and taking all the ground they could find the logistics for to occupy. The war was really over by then, though the vast territories held by Germany, combined with Hitler's stubbornness to even consider surrender, made the war linger for a year more.
All this is reflected in the casualty lists for the great powers; SU is said to have lost 10 mln lives, Germany 6 or 7, Britain several millions as well, US a few hundred thousand... even Italy and Poland rank above the US I think.
What the Americans DID do, was serve as an armoury for the Allies, even before they actually joined the war. The lend-lease program to Britain (from 1940) and the SU (from 1942) had a major impact on the war-faring abilities of these nations. The arms shipments to Britain were regularly payed for in credit notes though, something that has surely contributed to the decline of the British Empire after the war; the financial reserves had been drained. The Marshall aid after 1945 was much less then the credit accumulated by buying arms. Sure, there was no hurry repaying it, but it showed on all the balance sheets...
The Red Army was outmatched by the Wehrmacht in almost all aspects: tactics, equipment quality, logistics, production base, leadership,command structures and organization, communications, etc. However they had two factors to compensate for that. These were quantity and ruthlessness; they had millions of lives to give, and they were willing to give them. Yes they shot their own men. Yes they sent in attack squads with a second-echelon unit behind them with orders to shoot anybody that retreated. Yes they stormed fortified positions where they knew their casualties would be 50% or higher, something an American or British commander wouldn't dream of - but hey they conquered that position didn't they? Life was cheap at the Eastern front, so cheap that we can hardly imagine it nowadays. Then again, they had seen the full barbarism of nazism, compared to which the occupation of Western Europe was relatively light. They were indeed fighting for their bare existance as a race. The Communist system topped that off with the will and power to organize and maintain it; but the people's drive to defend Mother Russia, no matter what particular regime governed it, was at least equally strong.
So yeah, the Americans built the toys, and sent them to their allies to use them, and pay the blood that came along with using them. The Soviets payed that blood price, mostly, and I agree that they probably would have won in the end if the US had kept out as well. They'd never have won if Britain had submitted in the early years, though.
So, anyone want me to go into the Pacific war as well
Jur.
They lasted a long time in the war didn't they? 
)