I am involved in a debate over ETO frontlines. One of the arguments was that the eastern front was the main front land most important front of ETO. Reson was size and casualties. As i agree that it was the largest and bloodiest frontline, i disagree it was the main front line for the ETO. I also state that the southern front, western front, and air front were just as crucial and gave reasons why. What are your thoughts?
Hmm... As the OP said, the scale and number of casualties made the east front the largest land theatre. Two other "Fronts" should be considered. The war in the air and the war at sea, for control of access to markets and the world economy. I am not sure how you can apportion "Biggest Wins".
I don't think there was a "main" front. While the Eastern front involved massive numbers on both sides, one cannot discount the idea of multiple fronts. The Western front, the Mediterranean front, the air war, and sea warfare all contributed to the Allied success.
The Western allies took 1.5 million PW between 5 June 1944 and 31 March 1945 and a further 1.3 million in April 1945. I agree that western historiography neglected the Eastern Front, and the western public overlooked the extraordinary casualties of the war in eastern Europe. Those are not just in the scale of numbers but the proportions of population lost in e.g. Poland, Byelorussia and the Ukraine. These have been overshadowed by the holocaust in popular memory and political significance. The holocaust extended to the citizens of western Europe from a Jewish minority with powerful and articulate supporters.
I spoke with a Russian professor (U of Moscow) back in 1997. He said that they had been taught that the D-Day landings were no larger than the Dieppe raid. If you don't do the work yourself you'll have to hope that the people you read are honest and impartial. Good luck with that.
The Germans had no apppreciation. Later. It was Himmller who was sorry they l et the Russian work force die.