Well said.

Here’s another example of the fraud being widely espoused on Quora and other websites, apparently by a younger generation subject to Stalinist, Putinesque propaganda:

The Quora question: Why did the Russians not help America with Japan as America helped Russia during WWII?

And here’s a particularly obnoxious answer (with three upvotes!):

Verner Dnarr Follow 5h
That’s a lie. Russians did much more to help America with Japan then America did to help Russia with Nazi Germany. However now USA propaganda calls this Soviet invasion (!) of Manchuria [citing Wikipedia article "Soviet Invasion of Manchuria"]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...
Upvote 3

The question is framed somewhat simplistically, but Verner Dnarr's knee-jerk, unqualified dismissal of the question's basic premises just shows how much of a cause it is to Dnarr and his upvoters to denigrate western Allies' contribution to Allied victory over Reich forces.

Obviously, to Dnarr and similar Putinesque, Stalinist revisionists, piles of corpses (not technology-- i.e. air warfare-- or logistics) is what wins wars.

there are current reports of both major Axis powers having tested nukes

the Germans way of doing things was to have several groups competing to the same end, for example, 14 different groups were working on proximity fuse projects, including the Post Office (??) if i remember correctly
the Allies tended to group projects under one office so we we much better in project management.

I'm not up on what video war games are being played by kids (and others) these days, but I would be alarmed to learn that argument from enormity of corpse piles means anything in those games.

Once USSR joined the War in the east in June 1941 (maintaining a mutual non-aggression pact with Japan), and US declared war on Germany in the following December, the US and UK endorsed a more technologically, logistically sophisticated overall strategy than the USSR. To argue piles of corpses on the eastern front equaled/exceeded impact of UK/US air power on Axis industrial/transportation infrastructure—and especially Luftwaffe tie-down in occupied Axis territory facing west—seems peculiarly devoid of logic, like arguments presented by cultists and religious fanatics. What fuels such irrationality?

Without western Allied military participation (such as the Allied air war against the Reich homeland, occupied territory), and USSR materiel support such as was provided by PQ Arctic convoys, the entire industrial-technological superiority of the Reich (and a vastly superior Luftwaffe) could have been brought to bear on primitive Soviet forces.

The question of the impact of UK/US involvement should be clearly distinguished from the question of whether the UK should have signed a mutual non-aggression truce with Hitler/Mussolini at the time of Barbarossa, and, considering purely national self-interest, whether the US should have intervened in the Euro-N African theater whether or not the UK DID sign such a truce.

As US Senator B.K. Wheeler (D MT) once quipped before Pearl Harbor, "Why not let Hitler and Stalin duke it out to the finish?"

Hindsight should be 20/20 but gets distorted when crazed assertions aren't publicly, vociferously disputed. I just hate to see history become gaslight.