>>44678254It's partially due to the fact that the Soviets took a heavy beating due to having a huge Army steamrolling their nation.
It's also partially due to a lot of the Commonwealth's military actions were naval.
With the Navy, there are usually many less casualties, but the damage is done through sinking multi million dollar ships, along with top tier technology, tonnes of military equipment, gas/oil, and whatever supplies were required for forces on the land.
ANZAC and US dominated the pacific theatre, while Canada and the UK held the Atlantic.
Similar idea with UK's Air Force action; supplies lost, high tech equipment destroyed, but low human casualties.
When the Anglosphere actually did touch ground in Europe, the war was nearly won, or at least seemed a good chance of winning.
Anglo troops were use more strategically, rather than the Soviet cannon fodder.
We had high tech that could do half the battle for us.
