Considering that about 80% of German losses happened on the Eastern front, this isn't far from the truth.
Meanwhile, the White House claims that the war was won by the US and the GB [0]. And the US embassy in Denmark 'inadvertently' claims that Auschwitz was liberated by the Americans.[1]
Reducing winning down to body counts is precisely what was the problem with Vietnam. Materiel, production, logistics, money to fund it all.
It would be more precise to say the Russians were an American mercenary army. They were pretty much funded by them, most materiel was US produced and delivered for free.
Closer, but too simplistic - USSR had its own industry [0]. But it was in heavy need of aviation, heavy trucks, locomotives, fuel, ammunition and food for army. A lot of supplies were captured in Operation Barbarossa. Wikipedia has better description [1]:
> In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (4,719 of which were Bell P-39 Airacobras) and 1.75 million tons of food.
Compare with totals [2], check out USSR tanks production (119,583) [3]. And Lend Lease resources were not free - they had to be payed back.
The brilliance of USA move was helping others to fight their enemy. You can always replace goods but no way to replace a man. Without USSR they would loose a lot. Quite possibly there would be no USA today.
Well, there is a reason hiring mercenaries is usually regarded as a shady proposition. But you're right, Russia and America made a good match in WW2. It's just an angle that's not often illuminated (thanks for your far better post btw) and as always in this story, it's so sad that ordinary Russians ultimately paid the price. I wish that part also was shown differently (in Russia). Russia was not a casualty, Russians were. And Russians certainly did not win this war.
If there ever was a people divorced from its nationstate, its Russia. I know the propaganda department does not allow for critical thinking on this matter, but Russians did not win, and have never really won.
Well, define winning. Here the looser side(s) still exists not only as a nation, but also as flourishing economy, human rights, democracy, welfare etc. Russia has only the yearly parades.
It is not the same don't you think? Would it be possible to feed, transport army, cover by aviation etc without support [1]? Would it be possible if there was only one front? And even if it was that is not what happened. Truth should be respected.
Your view is so one-sided that it is easy to accept opposite one-sided view. Not allies, not entire world - "it is all USA because USSR claims everything for itself, you can't trust these USSR liers".
That claim is about Western Europe only [0]. Think about it. Without USA and UK entire Europe would be occupied by USSR. Litva claimed it was liberated in 1993 (48 years after end of war). I never understood them until one day.
My country was attacked without declaration of war in June 22, 1941.
My country was attacked without declaration of war in February 27, 2014.
It opens eyes.
I can't be sure but people from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Mongolia, Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine may understand. You may check what do they think about Russia, like Poland [3].
Russian government antagonizes these countries. It does not matter because its real enemies are its own people.
----
Navalny claims "27 millions Russians" - that number is entire USSR [1], Russia loss 13,950,000; Ukraine loss 6,850,000.
It would be more precise to say the Russians were an American mercenary army. They were pretty much funded by them, most materiel was US produced and delivered for free.