Yeah - I understand the chap's points but he is not applying them correctly, in my opinion. For example, it is absolutely true to say that the Germans went through the Red Army like a knife through butter in 1941, but I think that is because the Russians were largely unprepared (Stalin had executed many of his leading generals for instance). Despite the surprise attack, the Soviet Union withstood the invasion - just! - and the pendulum slowly swung the other way. Yes the Atlantic convoys helped, yes the $$ the US gave helped, but they were not fundamental to the war effort.

Yes, the Russians suffered a much higher casuality count than the Germans. So what?

Yes, it's true that the other theatres of war stopped the Germans from throwing their full forces at the USSR, but it is a fact that the Eastern Front committed over two thirds of German land troops. Yes, there were resistance and partisan movements etc but these were not landmark events in themselves. They definitely slowed up the Germans, and I would agree with that, but I don't think they were war-winning efforts on their own? The Soviets would have won the war, but maybe not in 1945 - may have gone on afew years more without Allied support and help.

The battles in Italy did not occupy many German troops (in the overall scheme of things) Yes, there were a million German troops on the Western Front, but there were 5-7 million in the Red Army at the time. Had all those soldiers been sent East, it still would not have been enough.

Bombing German towns and cities may have made us feel better after the Blitz, but it had little effect on civilian morale or factory production. Looking at the 'Blitz spirit' in Britain, bombing civilians just makes them more defiant. Recent history also teaches us that and it is a lesson that the US administration has singularly failed to appreciate.

I still stand by my argument that the USSR would have won the war on their own. It would have involved millions more casualities and costs, it may have lasted years longer, but the Soviets would have ground the Germans down eventually. They had too much advantage in size (and therefore logistics problems for the germans), weather, raw materials, population - and Stalin was every bit as ruthless and murderous as Hitler.

Gbrandon is a knowledgeable guy, but he and I are not going to agree (nor change each others' minds on this one). I am not going to get into a long argument about it as it is severely off-topic for this thread.

What I will agree with is that the world was saved. Nazism is fundamentally evil, whatever Royal may think.