• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did the Russians Save The World in WWII?

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Agreed. My only counterpoint would be that both Russia and Germany saw conflict as inevitable. Hitler was arrogant enough to think smashing the Russian frontlines would break them, which is probably as much leftover hubris and a misreading of the Russian political situation in WW1 as anything.

This is probably true. A lot of people look in hindsight at Hitler's decision to invade the USSR as his greatest blunder - and I don't necessarily disagree with that.

However, at the time, he might have considered just how poorly the Russians performed in WW1 against the Germans, as well as suffering a major debacle against the Japanese earlier in 1904-05.

He likely saw them as divided, weak, disorganized, and incompetent - not to mention the fact that Stalin had purged many of his best officers because he considered them threats to his regime. Hitler's racial policies and popular misconceptions of the Russians being "backward" and "inferior" might also have contributed to his belief that he could have defeated the Russians.

As it happened, the Germans still could have conceivably won on the Eastern Front, if not for some other serious blunders on Hitler's part. His racial policies also became a liability, as it alienated many anti-Stalinists in the USSR who would have been more than happy to help Hitler defeat Stalin. But because Hitler saw them as "sub-human," he lost what would have been an enormous asset in defeating the Soviets.

Stalingrad was a disaster of epic proportions for the Germans, and Operation Citadel was another serious blunder.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
"Saving the world" is a rather hysterical way of putting it, but there is no doubt that Hitler's decision to invade the USSR probably cost him the war. The Russian effort (and sacrifice) to defeat him was enormous.

The world was probably "saved" by 1943, at least inasmuch as Axis aggression was finally contained and now were on the defensive. Italy was already knocked out of the war. Many on the German high command knew that it was only a matter of time. The best the Japanese could hope for was a stalemate at that point, but even that was unlikely.

The Allies also knew that they were winning, and by 1943, "saving the world" was not so much an issue as much as demanding unconditional surrender. The Axis might have been willing to talk peace at that point, but they were not willing to unconditionally surrender. Could more lives have been saved if the Allies had been willing to broker a peace deal with Hitler in 1943? That's an interesting "what if" to ponder.

Mind you, the same could perhaps be said about Hitler's decision to declare war on the USA, after Pearl Harbour.

That was also a dumb decision on Hitler's part, and it's one he had no treaty obligation to make, since Japan was the aggressor. Hitler may have been hoping that Japan would then declare war on the USSR, but the Japanese were not thinking in those terms.

The Japanese were also in a pretty tight spot by 1943, and even worse by 1944-45. But just like in Germany, they had their hotheads who wanted to fight to the bitter end, holding the upper hand over the more reasonable types who wanted to make a peace deal.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Could more lives have been saved if the Allies had been willing to broker a peace deal with Hitler in 1943? That's an interesting "what if" to ponder.
.
Hmm, a world where WWII ended in a peace treaty? As much as I loathe Hitler, if someone were to write speculative fiction about that scenario, I’d read the hell out of that.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Am reading Churchill's six-volume memoirs on WWII. Really interesting to read the perspective of one of the three allied leaders.
 

Rise

Well-Known Member
Poetic justice on the Russians if you ask me.

The Russian supplied Hitler with natural resources while he was pounding away at Britain even up the the moment that Germany invaded Russia.
It actually goes both ways.

It was Germany who made Russia their enemy in WW1 by ending their 19th century alliance so Germany could try to steal eastern European territory from Russia in a future war. It was a primary aim of theirs in WW1.

Then it was Germany who funded and trained communist revolutionaries like Lenin, sending them into Russia to destabilize the country and knock them out of the war.

Then ironically it is the communist monster that Germany created which ends up causing so much death and destruction to them.

But, yes, it's interesting how Stalin thought he could control and cage hitler, encouraging him to turn against the west and think that wouldn't come back to bite him.

Lessons learned:
1. Don't create evil in order to take down your enemies.
2. Don't economically build up and empower your enemies, thinking you can control or contain them from turning against you.
 
Last edited:
Top