It is apparent that a lot of authors know a lot less than they think they do about the history of WWII.



First it is pretty much generally accepted that the combat effectiveness of the German Soldier versus the Russian was about 1 to 3 or 4. It was about 1 to 1.5 or 2 for British and American troops. This is an average calculated from various inputs, overall casualty rates on attack and defense when opposing force sizes were taken into account.



Now, despite what other pundits would have you believe, the US entered the war in 1943 with the invasion of North Africa and the start of the Daylight bomber offensive. This did two things.



First it diverted massive resources the Germans would have otherwise used on the Eastern Front. Not only did the landings in N. Africa divert an Army from mainland Europe to defend Morroco and Tunisia, it also started the hemorrhage of Luftwaffe forces from the East to the West. The victory in N. Africa netted in excess of 200,000 prisoners. The capture of Sicily and landings at Salerno, caused additional attrition and furthered the drawdown of air forces from the East to the west. The Germans had air supremacy in the east and the tide gradually began to shift to where the Russians had it, due mainly to the fact that most German air forces had to be withdrawn to other theaters.



Now for each German soldier withdrawn to fight in the West whether in North Africa, Italy or later France, it was essentially a combat multiplier for the Russians due to the difference in combat efficiency against the opposing armies. So pulling one Division from the East and sending it to the West, was like pulling four.



While the deaths of so many Russians killing a quarter as many Germans is laudable, the Russian leadership saw their people as cattle. Hell, they murdered 20 million of their own in the previous decade so its hard to stir up any tears.



Like economics, war has its own trickle down effects. Aircraft and seasoned pilots are drawn off from one battle space to another, resulting in breathing room for the side losing. Bombing the home front has unseen morale effects that may compromise the combat effectiveness of a heretofore victorious army. Strikes on lines of communication or conflicting priorities may cause effects as well. Did you know that over 250,000 German troops were required to man the Flak Defensed over Germany? That does not even count the industrial requirements, labor and steel necessary for building the guns, replacement barrels and millions of rounds of ammunition, that could have gone into accelerated production of additional and newer model Panzers.



Due to the effects of the allied bomber campaign the German emphasis on aircraft shifted to fighter production, which removed one leg of the effective triad of the German war machine: Armor, Infantry and close air support.



I have not even mentioned the millions of tons of war materials shipped to the Russians through lend lease, which allowed them to concentrate their industrial efforts on armor and artillery. The US and Brits shipped thousands of air planes and tanks to the Russians allowing them to make up losses they suffered early in the war. We shipped them mountains of such mundane things as boots, phone wire, food, and things like locomotives. Truck, we shipped them 250,000 trucks of all sorts, which I might add was the primary reason they were able to even HAVE a logistical train allowing their offensives to go forward into Germany.



One wonders how they would have managed having to have shipped most heavy industry east of the Urals, and losing numerous industrial centers to conquest or heavy damage in such cities as Kiev, Stalingrad, Minsk, Leningrad if not for the supplies received from the allies.



If the Germans had been left completely unmolested, they could have used their resources to defeat Britain in N. Africa, cut them off from India and force them to sue for peace.



It is likely that they would have retained at least air superiority in the East and eventually employed long range bombers against Russian industry, something they never did. They did have long range bomber prototypes.



The fact that people in the West are ignorant of the war in the East is no surprise, it has been obscured by the fog of the cold war. As many successes the Russians may have had on the offense, they had just about as many debacles the cost them hundreds of thousands of casualties due to ineptness of their high command.



Russia may have had millions of people to sacrifice on the battle field, but just as the US and Germany learned, it is hard to field a large army, make good its losses and at the same time maintain a fully war mobilized industrial base. By the time Berlin was taken, the Russians were scraping the bottom of the barrel, just as the US did in late 1944 fighting a two front war. The Russians could not have pursued a war of attrition losing 3-4 men to every 1 the Germans lost if not for the combat multiplier effect of the Allies.