>You're focusing individual merit as if it changed the outcome.
As someone who cares about history, I take into account the merit of the armies. Not the individual. The Germans fought better. I don't care if it changed the outcome. I feel that's a valuable assessment. No one adopted Soviet tactics, whereas lightning warfare has been tought at military colleges, and no one has based their tank design no the T-34 that wasn't also a communist country.
The outcome of the war doesn't interest me as much as what actually happened. When you're interested in war, the last thing you care about it the end result. It's the last thing actually. It's the battles, the politics, the strategy, the tactics, and yes,in part, the valor of individuals.
>But by 1944 the Soviet army was a well-oiled bulldozer across Europe and actually didn't suffer many casualties at this time.
This isn't true. As teh allies found out int he months after Normandy, there is nothing harder to punch through than the German defenses. The Russians took relatively less causalities, sure, now that they outnumbered the Germans ten to one, but there was still a huge disparity in favor of the Germans if I remember correctly. Granted, exact numbers are hard to come by because to the Russians counting their dead was about as much a priority as counting dead skin cells.
>Also, if the Soviets wanted to they could have continued to take France and Britain.
>The soviets could have beaten America
You're delusional. The Americans produced more shit and better. Think about how useless Russian troops were against Germans fresh in the Russian winter seeing the first conflict, using the Mouser K98.
Now imagine how great Russian troops would fair against an army that has been fighting in one of the most understated slug fests in history, is actually trained well, and is equipped with the M1 Garand.
>inb4 tanks
There would have been no better army at busting tanks at the time. None.