Despite my resistance, my friend chooses to believe that the USSR’s totalitarian rule is what allowed the war to be won (due to the necessity of an “iron-fist rule”) and that, although he acknowledges the “bad” that occurred in the USSR, he believes it was a “necessary evil”. My immediate thought was that the USSR found victory based on sheer numbers and that many died for no reason other than to throw numbers at the enemy. So it got me to thinking, “just how much of an effect did the USSR have in joining the war, and was their totalitarian rule actually something that helped them?” Just the same, I don’t have have clue how totalitarianism “assisted” the USSR at all. He mentions that Russia was “behind” and needed a push to industrialize. But again, I don’t see why so many had to die in order to reach such a thing.
I must apologize for my poor English skills.
This is very complicated and controversial question with a lot of heated debates still going on inside historical circles from the ex-Soviet countries. I will try to answer as neutral as possible.
The possibility of USSR joining up with nazis or evading the war whatsoever is interesting to consider but many Russian historians agree that war between USSR and The Third Reich was inevitable. After battle of Britain, Hitler no longer had any hopes on defeating the British in the air or on the seas and effectively had nowhere left to go but east: against an opponent whose actions have been annoying Germans for some time already, whose army proved to mostly be ineffective (Winter war with Finland) and whose lands and resources were ripe for the taking both from military, economical (Caucasian oil) and ideological ("half-humans" who don't deserve to live) points of view. Thus, we come to a conclusion that USSR's participation in the coming conflict was more or less certain, and it most likely was going to be against Germany.
my friend chooses to believe that the USSR’s totalitarian rule is what allowed the war to be won (due to the necessity of an “iron-fist rule”) and that, although he acknowledges the “bad” that occurred in the USSR, he believes it was a “necessary evil”.
This is hard to answer without any "ifs" or "buts". Saying that totalitarian rule was the saving grace of Soviet Union is both right and wrong. It was indeed effective in turning country's economy on war rails, mobilizing huge masses of reformed armed forces after first catastrophical Soviet defeats and holding crumbling state together, but, on the other hand, some methods used during these events indeed were quite brutal. I myself personally do not think that Soviet Union's brutality was a "necessary evil", Soviet leadership had made a ton of mistakes prior to and during the WWII years which had to be redeemed with blood of many innocent lives, including bad army composition and training level, inability to effectively predict German war plans and strategy, higher-ups' fear of taking responsibility and constant lack of initiative. [1] Yet even with these mistakes avoided I do not think that victory would've come lightly.
the USSR found victory based on sheer numbers
As did all the other Allied forces. Axis powers have been constantly outnumbered. Indeed, British or, say, American armies didn't suffer as much casualties as USSR did, but neither did they face most of the German armed forces at once. French and British troops' gruesome defeats in the early phase of the war were very damaging to the Allied cause even if they didn't lose millions upon millions.
many died for no reason other than to throw numbers at the enemy.
Somewhat correct, Soviet forces have been constantly faced with completely inadequate leadership of their commanders who themselves were usually given poorly planned orders. Rzhev meatgrinder or battle of Prokhorovka immediately come to mind when someone talks about useless frontal attacks. But remember that each dead Soviet soldier saved lives of American, British, Canadian or any other Allied soldiers, slowly, but surely chewing on German war machine and making it slowly, but steadily retreat back to Germany, taking great material and human losses. The victory was bought at a high cost, but, sadly, there was no other way for the poorly-equipped and led Red Army which had to face the most effective fighting force of its era head-on. [2]
just how much of an effect did the USSR have in joining the war
Without USSR's intervention 75% of German army which stalled near Moscow, froze to death at Stalingrad or was crushed during Operation Bagration would've been alive and kicking. Ready to choose another target in order to practice their famous Blitzkrieg.
He mentions that Russia was “behind” and needed a push to industrialize.
That is true. Russia, for most of its history, was indeed behind European powers in technologies, and the newer the age, the more catastrophic even slight lagging behind can be. Russian Empire was severely behind the rest of the Europe by 50 years of industrialization and economical development - an insane gap which could be closed only by the extreme measures taken by the Soviet government. And even then it wasn't enough. The fact that most of Soviet airplanes during WWII had been made mostly out of wood speaks volumes.[3]
But again, I don’t see why so many had to die in order to reach such a thing.
Yes, indeed, USSR's methods on "modernizing" were far from being humane or 100% effective for that matter. No one denies that except for hardcore Soviet fans (most of which weren't even born in USSR BTW). Many Soviet defeats came to be precisely because of their lacking planning, ineffective government and bad management. But even with better leadership I personally don't think USSR's casualties in the coming war would've been light. The difference between a country barely able to stand on its feet and a giant, cutting-edge war machine would've still been enourmous.
Sources:
[1] L. Lopuhkovsky - "1941: Programmed defeat"
[2] V. Zamulin - "A sad truth of Prokhorovka"
[3] A. Isayev - "Ten myths of the Second World War"