There seems to be so many movies around in which one person “single handedly saves the world”. I am wondering if this has ever actually happened to any extent. Has there ever been a situation in which the entire existence of earth/the human race has depended on the success of one single person completing a task?
I am trying to get at the “action hero” side of things rather than the scientist who finds a vaccination to a disease or the politician who decides NOT to drop the bomb. Does anyone know of a person/situation where this has actually happened or are we lead to believe that only in a well crafted(!) movie script can this happen?
I’m sure this will become a great debate, but one could argue that Nikita Krushchev did, by backing down during the Cuban Missle Crisis. I guess one could argue that Kennedy is in fact the person deserving of it - it depends on how one looks at things, or narrows their definition.
One could argue that Winston Churchill did, by leading and inspiring the UK to hold out against Hitler long enough until the US finally go around to goading the Japanese to attack at Pearl Harbor. If the UK had fallen very early on, or sued for peace, then perhaps by the time of Pearl Harbor Hitler would have had all of Europe, including the UK, and been able to fight a single-front war against the Russians. And that would have led to their defeat, Hitler capturing the oil fields of the Middle East, and … you get the picture.
Other than those instances, I’m not sure that we have had a threat large enough that would have affected “mankind as a whole” as much.
I know this is General Questions not IMHO but the US did not “save the world”. I seem to remember reading somewhere that the British, French, Russians and other smaller nations did play a small part too. Churchill was the real hero of that war. The US waited until they were pushed into the war.
I believe the reason why there may not be any clear cut answers to this thread is that even if a person did something amazing that helped “save the world”, there will always be doubt in it. Had Winston Churchill not inspired the UK, maybe someone else would have stepped up to stop Hitler, etc.
I believe the world would still be around if it weren’t for Abe Lincoln. And even if the US didn’t “save the world” in dubba-ya dubba-ya two, the world would still be here. Although things would be different.
I don’t think there is any question though that WWII has been the pivotal moment in human history thus far.
While ‘save the world’ might be a tad strong exactly what do you suppose the British and French would have done to save themselves? The French lost practically immediately. The Brits were shoved back across the Channel at Dunkirk at the at the same time the Frech lost. After that the Brits hung tough has hell defending their island but they were in no way capable of going back to France much less all of the way to Germany on their own.
Without a second front (western) to deal with Hitler might have actually won in Russia. It was a close thing as it was. Getting another 25% of his troops back to throw at Russia not to mention not having his industry bombed and Hitler might well have achieved victory there too.
As for Japan who was over there to fight them? The Russians? They had bigger fish to fry with Hitler and the Japanese were busy with China anyway. Australia? They might make good soldiers but their war machine was in no way up tp the task of taking on the Japanese. Beyond that I can’t think of anyone else over there who might have stopped Japan.
So, if not for the US, how do you suppose Hitler and Tojo would have been stopped?
The US was bad enough at getting off its ass and getting into the world back then. How do you suppose our country would have reacted had Lincoln not set a precedent for stopping BS when he saw it? The US grew-up during the Civil War and you can thank (or revile depending on your stance) Lincoln for that.
Acco40:
It is true Acco40 that the world would still be here just fine with or without good ol’ Abe or any other person you care to name. Just what kind of world would it be though and would you want to live in it?
While the British were shoved back across the channel there was little chance of the Germans following them. The Battle of Britain put paid to any plans the germans had of invading Britain. So the British could sit tight and rebuild their army. This they did and then managed to defeat the germans in North Africa. I admit the US were there at the end of that campaign but the British would have won there without their help. With oil supplies from that region cut off the germans were ineffective as an attacking force and were on the back foot. While I admit they could not have gone all the way to Berlin on their own (they simply didnt have the men or equipment needed) they could have fought up through Italy and then internal pressure in Germany could have forced the end of Hitler.
MIGHT have won. As soon as his initial plan failed hitler was effectively kiboshed. Russia had superiority in men and machines and would have ground there way to Berlin on their own. Extra german troops from the west would have slowed them down but probably not stop them.
It is true that there no effective force against Japan in the pacific. They would have been unable to invade Australia however so it would have ended up as a stalemate. Once germany had ben defeated the russians might then have been willing to do something about it. Possibly throwing japan out of chine to secure its own borders but probably not much more.
I think I’ve already answered that above.
This is beginning to turn into a rant but despite the fact that the “US grew-up during the Civil War” they were still isolationist even after the experiences of the first world war. They would only do something when their own interests were threatened directly.
You seriously think that WWII is or was a greater influence than Jesus? I mean, really. Believe in His divinity or not, but He almost singlehandedly shaped the nature and actions of the majority of the population of earth for the last two thousand years! And WWII trumps this, huh? To each his own, I guess.
The only thing that springs to mind: There was this one guy in the Soviet command center who had Kruschev on the phone during a missile alert. Just as the point of no return was approaching, he finally figured out that the missile was a suborbital weather experiment instead of a submarine launched nuclear weapon, and told Kruschev that he should NOT launch a full retaliatory strike.
Reread your history. The Japanese expansion toward Australia (specifically the invasion of Port Moresby) was stopped by Admiral William Halsey, USN at the expense of the USS Lexington. Had the US Pacific Fleet carriers been at Pearl Harbor on the morning of 7 December, 1941, the Japanese would have consolidated their hold on all the Pacific islands west of Hawaii and probably later invaded western Australia sometime in early 1943.
The USSR would probably not have been able to prevail against Hitler without the aid of the US. The entry of the US into the war forced Hitler to keep a sizable percentage of his army in western Europe to prevent an invasion there (which we managed anyway). Another couple of Army Groups would have made a HUGE difference on the Eastern Front in 1942. The Germans had things pretty well in hand until Stalingrad and it was not until 1943, 18 months after the US entered the war, when the tide turned.
Even so, it is very doubtful that the USSR could have taken on Japan and won much of anything. Mao was very distrustful of Stalin and would have concentrated much of his forces on Chiang, anyway. Japan and Russia crossed swords once before, much to the chagrin of the Tsar. The Japanese Army and Navy were the best in the world in 1941. I believe it was Chesty Puller that said “We all talk of fighting to the last man but the Japanese, by God, they actually do it.” They routed a British force in Singapore even when outnumbered two to one and the British infantry was then considered the best in the world. We beat them with two things: unrestricted submarine warfare and an incomprehensible battle plan. By keeping them off guard on where we would strike next, they were weak everywhere. After Guadalcanal, the Japanese were severly outnumbered at every engagement.
I am a little concerned that this thread is turning into an opinionated historical debate with a few religious comments thrown in for good measure. My original idea was to gather a few names of historical figures that may well have saved the world with little (if any) support from anyone else.
Churchill may have lead the British/US to victory but I would assume that there were a few other people on the front to help him win!!! He didn’t do it single handedly and the threat to the human existance was not entirely apparent before the event.
Chas.E has the right idea. If you want to talk about WWII then go right ahead but looking back at most peoples posts I don’t think anyone has come up with a reasonable answer yet.
You ARE on to something. This is an unrelated case I think, but I saw a similar story on Dateline, Primetime Live, or 20/20 about 5 or 6 months ago. I remember it now.
The beginning of the program said something like: “What were you doing on June 12, 1985?” And it showed a pro baseball game being played and old news footage and Reagan, etc. and then they got into the story of what could have happened that day.
Apparently during the cold war, the Soviets hid away these triggermen in nuclear launch bunkers all over Russia.
Well this one guy was all-of-a-sudden getting all these strange signals as if MANY rockets were being fired from Colorado toward the Soviet Union. Red lights were flashing all around him… blah blah blah… he HAD to make an immediate decision. And he DIDN’T fire. He had the gut reaction that it was a false alarm.
Sure enough, it was some kind of weather phenomenon in the Rockies that was throwing the Soviet system out of whack.
The man was later questioned for his inaction by Soviet officials and then fired as a result of his albeit, correct decision, forever condemned by the soviet military.
I mean THAT is saving the world! He gets my vote anyway.
Sorry for no cite; I’ll try and round it up later. Has anyone else seen this story? It was on one of those news magazine shows.
Sorry about the pretty bad hijack. For those interested in continuing the debate on WWII and the US impact in it see this thread over in Great Debates.
Back to the OP:
I think part of the problem in answering this question lies in the definition of ‘saving the world’. Stopping a nuclear holocaust seems clear. Bruce Willis in Armageddon saving the earth from a killer asteroid would be another example (yes…I know that’s fiction…just setting what I think the terms of ‘saving the world’ means).
By christian definition Jesus saved us all but as London_Calling pointed out christianity is by no means the largest religion out there and as such many people would justifiably question that one.
And therein lies the problem. Many times we have seen people or groups of people off on a mission to save people but those people may not want saving (or at least not the saving offered by the ‘saviors’). Had Hitler won we’d probably all be singing his praises and demonizing the evil US and Britain.
The other problem is saving the world hasn’t really been possible till the last century or so. Before that you’d get local issues but not usually ones that affected the world as a whole.
For an interesting read you might check out What If?: The World’s Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been. This book is all speculation but at least it is educated speculation. In different essays it ventures guesses as to what might have happened had history gone left instead of right. What is really interesting is how history hinged on what, at the time, often seemed like small or insignificant events. Certainly not events that anyone would guess would have large future ramifications.
Along these lines they mention what might have happened had Alexander the Great died at age 21 instead of 32 (which he very very nearly did). Had that happened they contend that the western world would look very different today (and might not even have gained the concept of democratic government).
Did Alexander the Great save the world? I dunno…I’m a big fan of democracy but I suppose a Chinese perspective might take a very different view.
Given the difficulty in nailing down what constitutes saving the world I think I’d have to add my vote for the guy Chas.E mentioned for not nuking the world. At least that one is pretty clear.
