Fortunately, we never had to find out who was better, but Bagration was launched against German Army Group Centre, not US 12th Army Group. Germans occupied exposed position, had grand total of two panzer divisions in reserve and tactical and operational mobility was extremely limited due to Hitler's orders and lack of vehicles. Similarly sized US army group would have had ample warning (due to air superiority), a lot of air support, superior artillery and a lot of tanks to rely on.
Probably, but thats not my point.
My points are: a) Western Armies never launched anything nearly complex, fast and deadly, on a scale comparable to Bagration. And b) If there would be Bagration v2.0 in Russo-Western war, it would be maybe Russians launching it (successfully or not I can't say) but Western Armies in Europe would not even be in a position to think about something remotely similar to that (vs Russians). Simply a non issue.
Berlin, as far as First Belorussian Front was concerned, was a botched operation and the quantity and quality of German defenders was for an order of magnitude worse than anything Western Allies could present. Bagration and Berlin shows that 1944/45 Red Army was superior to Wehrmacht, not the US Army.
I don't agree.
Russo-Allied conflict was not likely to take place, but if it did, I doubt Soviets would trust their East European "allies" very much. Aside from Yugoslav partisans and a division worth of communist colaborators in each country, I can't imagine any Pole or Czech taking arms against Americans on behalf of Stalin.
As if he'd be asking them nicely? Forced drafts.... but Russians didn't even need that. Had someone like Patton be foolish enough to provoke hostilities in summer of 45 you'd have Soviet tank armies on Rhine in matter of weeks, before any mass forced draft of Czechs or Poles would even take place (let alone any mass draft of, say, French, to fight on the Westernside). Just my, somewhat educated guesswork.
Communists in France and Italy would not be contributing "divisions" (or maybe they would but thats not the point) but they will simply undermine political and moral will to fight vs Soviets in those countries.
Soviet offensive against Japanese was indeed magnificent, but once again, I have to point out at the quality of the opposition. Allied advance through Germany after the Rhine crossing was nothing short of spectacular either.
Quality of the opposition? I can hardly imagine more determined and stubborn opposition than Japanese in unpassable, mountainous, roadless, hard Manchurian terrain. Now wheres Becket when you need him Glantz's (historian) fascination with Manchurian operation is well known, and I suggest everyone should read his papers on this topic (some of his works on Manchurian operation are available freely on the net).
You're talking with the benefit of the hindsight. Now imagine we're back in 45 and you know nothing about future. Being an Allied commander (any allied army), I would perhaps try to avoid invading Manchuria more than anything else on the planet (except Japan Home Islands). Japanese were so determined they threw themselves on the Russian tanks kamikaze style (Russians called them "smertniki"), some Japanese positions held out for weeks in the Manchurian mountains, to fight to the very last man etc.
Hardly a low quality opposition.
Yes Japanese lacked tanks and AT weapons, but regardless of this fact, I repeat, I can't imagine any western army conquering Manchuria nearly as quick and brutal as Soviets did in 45.
You need to play WITP more
Germans on the other hand were quality opposition, but by spring 45 were more then ready to surrender to the West, as they realised the real deadly enemy bent on bloody revenge, comes from the east. They never fought US to the last man, and since Feb-March 45 on many occassions surrendered without a bullet being fired. You can't really take that as basis for comparison.