imbecile. the us had a minor role that it played in the european theater. you've been force fed propaganda since childhood and unquestionably believe it because that's all you know. russia would've prevailed without assistance just fine.  > muh moscow numerous past precedents exist where russia has lost moscow and retaken it after they've gathered strength and expelled whatever invader, be it mongols, the polish-lithuanian commonwealth, or the french. moscow's an important city no doubt, but its loss wouldn't be deterministic, unlike the french immediately surrendering after the fall of paris. russians aren't like that. they'd sooner burn it down to ash and then rebuild it, than surrender to the nazis. russia's huge and has plenty of resources in the far east. as long as the people's will endures, they would fight back and repel the invaders with time. germans on the other hand were extremely outstretched and undersupplied and ill prepared for this undertaking.  and you know what else? it wouldn't last. even if they somehow miraculously managed to win or perhaps to strike a deal with stalin to form an actual alliance, the nazi regime would inevitably and undoubtedly collapse due to its inability to hold control over all of europe. there were too many dissenters and partisan movements for it to survive. it would bleed out and die from a thousand small cuts.
Democrat