The USSR won WW2. That is a fact.
No, the USSR contributed the most in terms of both numerical German losses and the sacrifice of around 20 million of its own citizens, to winning the Second World War. It did not achieve the destruction of Germany by itself and would not have been involved in the war at all had Hitler not been so attached to his delusions of imperial grandeur about living space in the east. Although Lend-Lease fell far short of the agreed quotas, it did help significantly. Whenever Russian soldiers opened tins of corned beef from the US and Britain there was a joke amongst them to the effect that, "Look, I'm opening the Second Front"...they had a good point in that while Soviet troops were being sacrificed at lightening speed and at a statistic incomparable to any other war in history, the West was hesitating about just how to actually open another front in Europe...but do you really think they weren't grateful for the food?
British seamen braved the Arctic freeze in convoys to send aid to Russia, while under attack by U-boats and the Luftwaffe. It would be criminal to overlook such endeavours. Even if propaganda in part spurred them, it testifies to the "team effort" that truly irritated the Axis. The propaganda "morale-booster" of witnessing genuine transnational cooperation by Britons braving the Arctic waters to send supplies to the Soviet Union must have so infuriated the Germans. Could they look for anything similar from their alleged Italian and Japanese allies?
Likewise it was the British secret service that provided the Soviets with the indispensable information on German troop movements and plans that enabled them to win the Battle of Kursk in 1943 which was a decisive victory. The Western Allied landings in Sicily also meant that Hitler had to divert some forces to Italy or face a humiliating disaster which helped to further weaken his "pincer" movement. Had the Kursk offensive succeeded in weakening the Soviet potential in the summer of 1943, by cutting off a large number of forces, the Soviet advance to the west could have been irrepressibly delayed. Germany would have encircled and destroyed numerous Soviet divisions, which would have been a fitting counterpoint to Stalingrad. Perhaps there might even have been a bloody stalemate. There was no such intelligence sharing between the Axis Powers which was a potent weakness.
Kursk is therefore a stark illustration of how a "Soviet" victory was in fact a joint allied victory. There is more too the "art" of war than merely annihilating a large body of men. The Allies were truly named, for they were "genuine" allies in a sense that the Axis were not and this was crucial for their ultimate total victory over their foes.
Soviet manpower (and the Russian winter), American industry and British technology/secret services (radar, secret intelligence, enigma codebreaker etc.) together resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich...oh not to mention Hitler's lack of comprehension for military realities on the ground and crazy errors of judgement. Hitler's meglomania was critical in helping the Allies win.
By suggesting that either the US or the USSR "won" the war (or indeed any single nation), we undermine the reality of an international alliance in which everyone played their part - not equally, for the Soviets suffered disproportionate losses and inflicted disproportionate losses in kind - but the burdens of war were shared as was the hour of victory.
