- Thread starter
- #41
Yeah, it's not a very realistic scenario, but it is realistic argue about a scenario were Germany defeats the Soviet Union, and the Allies are certainly hopeless because Stalin was defeated? (e.g Richard Overy in Why the Allies Won).
Today, we know that Hitler's war machine was far less effective than usually decipted, and a stalemate against the Soviets was as good as Pyrrhic victory for the Nazis to save their country, and for a simple reason: Western Allies.
What I really don't like is the view of the Russians "saving the world from Nazism". What happened, was a simple opportunistic alliance for both sides to defeat Hitler (a common enemy, and an announced enemy for Russia since Mein Kampf).
Let's think about some possibilities with and without the Grand Alliance:
*Britain signs peace in 1940: Hitler has a realistic chance of survival.
*Without the Western Allies, Hitler fights the Soviet Union: with a victory or stalemate, Hitler has realistic chances of survival.
*Hitler fights the historical Allied coalition: Hitler's chances are greatly reduced, and the rest is history.
So, I think it's fair to claim that the USSR was the main military responsable for the defeat of the most powerful Axis country, but drawn comparisons such as the one from Overy is not the best way to depict this, because they are needlessly provocative for a still very sensitive subject in the West. The Western freedom was not necessarily "saved" by the Communism (which, by it's part, destroyed the freedom of Eastern Europe), but was certainly much more easily obtained by the alliance sealed with the Communists against the common enemy, and those Soviet contributions that certainly deserve much needed recognition in the West, while the Russians and other ex-Soviet peoples need to learn about the contributions from their allies as well.
Today, we know that Hitler's war machine was far less effective than usually decipted, and a stalemate against the Soviets was as good as Pyrrhic victory for the Nazis to save their country, and for a simple reason: Western Allies.
What I really don't like is the view of the Russians "saving the world from Nazism". What happened, was a simple opportunistic alliance for both sides to defeat Hitler (a common enemy, and an announced enemy for Russia since Mein Kampf).
Let's think about some possibilities with and without the Grand Alliance:
*Britain signs peace in 1940: Hitler has a realistic chance of survival.
*Without the Western Allies, Hitler fights the Soviet Union: with a victory or stalemate, Hitler has realistic chances of survival.
*Hitler fights the historical Allied coalition: Hitler's chances are greatly reduced, and the rest is history.
So, I think it's fair to claim that the USSR was the main military responsable for the defeat of the most powerful Axis country, but drawn comparisons such as the one from Overy is not the best way to depict this, because they are needlessly provocative for a still very sensitive subject in the West. The Western freedom was not necessarily "saved" by the Communism (which, by it's part, destroyed the freedom of Eastern Europe), but was certainly much more easily obtained by the alliance sealed with the Communists against the common enemy, and those Soviet contributions that certainly deserve much needed recognition in the West, while the Russians and other ex-Soviet peoples need to learn about the contributions from their allies as well.
Last edited: