I've seen photos of German soldiers in the USSR being treated as liberators and there were reports they Russians at first preferred the Germans over their own government. No surprise in the Ukraine and Baltic states as well.

How well did the German troops behave themselves in these occupied territories in WW1 and it seems easy to me if the Germans weren't so harsh on the "slavs" They probably could have won the war. Also it wopuld have freed up manpower used in the holocaust fo frontline service.

Thoughts?

According to my extremely biased source ("The Nazis" section of "The Most Evil Men" or something), the Wehrmacht Heer didn't want to blamed for the racially-charged atrocities committed in the East--it was all the Blackshirts' fault.

Blame it all on the Blackshirts. [/not answering anything]

Indeed it costed everything. The soldiers didn't want to die for Stalin. I heard about cases, where 2 German soldiers made about 1.000 Soviet PoW. They just surrendered. If Hitler didn't lead a racial war he could have been in Moscow with ease. That changed dramatically when the Austrian ordered the racial policies.

Adler

Nazis did kill an awfully lot of people who would have been useful for them as workers and soldiers and at the same time made those still alive to hate them with passion.

Indeed the rascism probably contributed to Germany's defeat, but without them the war would probably never have started anyway.

According to my extremely biased source ("The Nazis" section of "The Most Evil Men" or something), the Wehrmacht Heer didn't want to blamed for the racially-charged atrocities committed in the East--it was all the Blackshirts' fault.

Blame it all on the Blackshirts. [/not answering anything]

Well the Heer (especially its higher ranking members) liked to distance itself from the Nazi regime after the war, many of them seemed genuinely confused as to why the Western Allies hadn't joined the anti-bolshevik crusade as well. Evidence suggests however that many generals knew of the warcrimes being committed, and many of the Heer's rank and file either watched or took part in some of the less pleasant operations carried out in the rear areas.

It would therefore be an exaggeration to blame the holocaust on the Heer, or lay the responsibility for carrying it out on them, but a mistake to assume it was all the fault of Hitler and the Blackshirts.

I'd also like to point out the brain drain it caused Germany. Albert Einstein, Edward Teller, Paul Wigner, Otto Frisch, Felix Bloch, Rudolf Peierls, and Leo Szilard to name a few, all fled Europe because of anti-semitism. There were quite a few more gentile scientist who fled due to opposition to fascism.

Yes. Their racial policies started the war.

In the USSR, having the support of the Ukraine and Belorussia wouldn't have changed the tide. Russia was stronger than them.

What about Russians themselves? Didn't alot of them fight for the Germans as well?

According to Nafziger somewhere in the region of a quarter of the entire German Army in 1945 were former citizens of the Soviet Union. He also states that around the time of D-Day something like 800,000 were in the army and a further 100,000 divided between the Kreigsmarine and Navy. These figures unfortunately aren't broken down into nationalities but its hard to imagine that there wouldn't be a significant number of Russians in those ranks.

Its also worth noting that when Hitler went into one of his rages about desertion rates in Vlasov's army he insisted on it being disolved it on masse. His generals pleaded with him not to do so since the loss of all the Russian troops and Hiwis would bring the Russian front to collapse. He eventually relented to only disbanding units whose loyalty was questionable and transferring many of the others to the west. This lead to the Western Allies running into all kinds of unusual "Ost" troops in the Normandy campaign.

Given the rather striking will of many citizens of the USSR to serve in the Wehrmacht despite all that Hitler was unleashing on the country its not hard to imagine how a slightly more lenient attitude towards such people could have resulted in an even greater pool of manpower being made available.

Nazis didn't have the resources to treat their PoWs or occupied populations well. And they certainly had no intentions of doing so.

The racial policies helped unite Germany, and from there go on to fight as it did. It could have united other, better ways, but simply without racial ideas and nothing else to unite it, Germany would not have been what it was. It would have taken another leader besides Hitler, who espoused different ideals, to have the same power and unity.
I think so, anyway.
But now if it didn't have that racist ideas and it did have the unity it brought, it is much more possible that they would have won. But at the same time, if were are looking at this alternate Germany, would it still have attacked as it did? The whole reason it did, or at least was justified, was racism. Without that who knows, could it have built itself into prosperity without invasion?
If we take this alternate Germany, we could look at another French or Russian revolution type thing (the later parts anyway, if there were no initial revolution to start if off). By that I mean, Germany takes on new ideas that aren't racist, I suppose it could still be fascist, though at some point you'd think those racist ideas would be played upon and effect the way foreigners were used, who knows. It could also have been communist or something like that, either way, here Germany could be united and not necessarily be racist and thus take on all the help it could get, as it tries to spread it's revolutionary ideas, and would most certainly be provoke war with the other major powers, as the French and Russian Revolutions did.
While I'm going alt history, depending on this Germany, the Spanish Civil War could have ended much differently, and Italy may have become an enemy (3 sides? Or would Italy be with the Allies?) or it may have mirrored Italy's (and therefore probably Franco's) fascism more, where racism wasn't really played upon.
All in all, I've said to much, but spoke my mind nonetheless.
cheers.

@West , the Bersailes treaty had much to do , with the Rise of Nazis and Hitler in Power. If someone else with nationalist but less racist ideals existed , with such charisma , he may have done it much more successfully. ON the other hand Hitler has a package. There was in it Racism but also charisma that was successful at giving him power and uniting people for his causes.

I think Germany would be nationalist , but not as united or aggresive if Nazis did not rise to power.

If it weren't for the racial policies, the Nazis would probably not be considered nearly as universally evil as they were and are. Alienation of occupied peoples has been a knife pointed at the heart of many, many empires.

Extra manpower wouldn't have saved Germany. As before mentioned, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans served in the German war machine while millions were used as slaves.

The Nazis could never keep up with the USSR, Britian and USA's industrial output. And that, as well as some rather questionable military decisions from Hitler cost Germany the war. Not a lack of troops.

Extra manpower wouldn't have saved Germany. As before mentioned, hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans served in the German war machine while millions were used as slaves.

The Nazis could never keep up with the USSR, Britian and USA's industrial output. And that, as well as some rather questionable military decisions from Hitler cost Germany the war. Not a lack of troops.

Well, if the Nazi attitude towards Slavs had been different, Hitler could probably have caused all-out revolution in USSR, resulting in Communists being overthrown and new government installed. This might have put USSR's huge industrial output onto another side of that equation...

Well, if the Nazi attitude towards Slavs had been different, Hitler could probably have caused all-out revolution in USSR, resulting in Communists being overthrown and new government installed.

Pure nonsense right from nazi mythology. Hitler's invasion consolidated Stalin's regime politically, it didn't weaken it. The nazis would've probably met more resistence if they hadn't savagely punished rebellious populations to "set an example to others" (which is ancient but often brutally effective tactic when it comes to occupation). And furthermore, the nazis couldn't have afforded to care for the occupied populations: the nazi economy was very narrowly focused on warfare and food was scarce.

Pure nonsense right from nazi mythology. Hitler's invasion consolidated Stalin's regime politically, it didn't weaken it.

I do not claim to be an expert on the matter. Admittedly I know only as much as Solzhenitsyn wrote about the topic in the "Archipelago", but he kind of agrees with OP.
Care to elaborate how you came to this conclusion of yours?

I do not claim to be an expert on the matter. Admittedly I know only as much as Solzhenitsyn wrote about the topic in the "Archipelago", but he kind of agrees with OP.
Care to elaborate how you came to this conclusion of yours?

Solzhenitsyn is a crappy and a biased historian. I recently had a discussion about him on another forum site. I can imagine that antisemitic, bigoted nationalist tsarist apologist aching for a nazi victory.

Solzhenitsyn is a crappy and a biased historian. I recently had a discussion about him on another forum site. I can imagine that antisemitic, bigoted nationalist tsarist apologist aching for a nazi victory.

I'll take a tsarist apologist over a stalinist one any day of the week.

----

I think it is clear that the germans could have used the hatred that the people occupied by the soviets felt for them. As other said, they were cheered in the Ukraine as liberators.

The nazis turned out to be as bad as Stalin, and even so they managed to recruit quite some people in the East. Could they have won the war? No, but perhaps they could have reached some sort of settlement. The most likely outcome would still be a complete german defeat, but the soviets would endure even a greater beating.

I'll take a tsarist apologist over a stalinist one any day of the week.

If you're meaning to imply that I'm a stalinist apologist. Go to hell.

Solzhenitsyn is a crappy and a biased historian. I recently had a discussion about him on another forum site. I can imagine that antisemitic, bigoted nationalist tsarist apologist aching for a nazi victory.

Well, he may have been bigoted nationalist, probably tsarist and maybe even antisemitist. But he sure as hell wasn't the only one who harbored such feelings in USSR. There does not seem to be too much info on the net, but I found this article:
http://www.feldgrau.com/rvol.html, which seems to support my argument.
I don't know anything about the site, but (unless you want to question cruelty of Stalin's regime), it would only make sense, that many Russian citizens did turn against him at the first opportunity. It also makes perfect sense, that (unless you want to question Hitler's stance towards Slavs) the potential of this situation was very much neglected by Nazis.

It has been suggested that numbers wouldn't have made any difference since merely having more soldiers wouldn't have helped. I think that misses the point a little. It wasn't necessary to have to use these people in the army to gain an advantage from being humane towards them. Merely not having a partisan problem in many areas, or significantly reducing it could have been a major advantage to the Germans. It could also be argued that slave labour was a false economy since it often meant menial tasks and labourers inclined towards sabotage.

I think it is clear that the germans could have used the hatred that the people occupied by the soviets felt for them. As other said, they were cheered in the Ukraine as liberators.

Heh. Len Deighton goes so far as to suggest that, had they capitalized on popular rage after Dunquerque, the Germans could have made the French their allies...

it would only make sense, that many Russian citizens did turn against him at the first opportunity.

No, it really doesn't. Foreign aggression usually ends up consolidating domestic power structures, not the opposite. That's almost historical universal.

Also, even if they had treated Russians and other occupied better, they wouldn't have had the resources to feed them or keep them warm, which would've lead to hostilities anyways. And if the nazis would've tried to keep them fed and warm, they would've lost precious resources to fight the war and feed their own soldiers.

During the war, many Wehrmacht units were aghast at the sight of starving, sickly occupied and imprisoned populations, and they requested supplies to feed them, but such requests were denied because the German logistics and resources were strained already vastly by the occupation of the entire Europe and vast swathe of USSR. A lot of Nazi Germany's murderousness had to do with its madness and pathetic weakness, not with its terrible strength.

So what you're saying is not realistic at all. It's a remaining vestige of anticommie propaganda.

If the Nazis would have treatet the Slavic people better they could have reduced some of the short term problems. They might have done what they did with France, get the strategicaly important parts and form a pupped regime in the less interesting parts. Indeed, there were french collaborators, many more than the french wanted to hear about, even decates later. The same applied for many other conquered areas.

But Whatever the Nazis might have conquered (and mostly did) and whoever might have collaborated, they simply didn't have the economy to support their enormous military efforts. Already before the outbreak of the war Nazi Germany had enormous depts because of their oversized army. Without brutally draining at least the fiscal ressources out of the conquered economys, their whole military-industrial complex might have collapsed within the first years of the war. The food supply was similar bad. One third of the food the germans needed was importet, food that during the war had to be supplied by the occupied countries. There were estimations from before the Operation Barbarossa (the attack against Soviet Russia) that 3 Million Soviet citicens had to perish in order to support the nazi german military forces in soviet russia with food and supplys. The modern warfare was so expensive that even if the germans would have "won" the war, the losses of people and of money would have shattered the economy, as it can be seen at the UK after it "won" the war. Although being the only war leading country in europe that never suffered any occupation (exception: channel islands), it actually received more money from the Marshall Plan than any other country in Europe.

To the point of the topic I would agree that the racist policies of the Nazis cost them a great deal, but would not have lost them the war altogether had they not made the classic mistakes we all know of: Dunkirk, the Entire Russian war, Reliance on Italy in the Mediterranean, The stopping of the bombing of Britain at a critical juncture, and the Alliance with Japan that earned them next to nothing and cost them a lot of american soldiers killing germans.

To say that the German economy was stretched by the war effort is true, HOWEVER it was more mismanagement that cost them the east front than the economy, statistics for the russian front I saw on the History channel were that the germans were killing the Russians 10:1 in infantry, 5:1 in tanks and 6:1 in artillery. It should be noted that the Germans lost air superiority over russia in one hell of a hurry, but that (again) was mismanagement: Stalin did not believe the Germans would attack Russia, and made a habit of executing his spies who warned of the invasion. Germany was getting supplies out the wazoo from russia, and if the Germans had not decided to invade russia, the extra planes trains, and men they would have had available not only in france but in Norway would have allowed them to cripple the British and then go ahead with operation Sealion, as well as allowing Rommel more units in N.A. winning that war.
No documentary I have ever seen, or article I have ever read has lead me to believe that if Germany had split WW2 into 2 separate wars against Europe, and then Russia once the first was totally over, that they could have possibly lost. The racism cost them a lot of men in the camps, and more importantly, as has been mentioned, cost them a large number of great thinkers, however I still remain confident that had Germany not been a Dumbass and held off on Barbarossa, they would have won, hands down.

Foreign aggression usually ends up consolidating domestic power structures, not the opposite. That's almost historical universal.

True. However, I believe that is particular case in an exception, since USSR was not a national state, but in essence a huge colonial empire that had emerged from revolution and civil war just two decades ago and which had seriously suppressed all nations it contained, even Russians. Those millions of USSR citizens fighting on German side were not fiction. They were mismanaged.They were given no hope for even puppet government, but still they joined Nazis against USSR.

Also, even if they had treated Russians and other occupied better, they wouldn't have had the resources to feed them or keep them warm, which would've lead to hostilities anyways. And if the nazis would've tried to keep them fed and warm, they would've lost precious resources to fight the war and feed their own soldiers.

You need to feed prisoners. Other occupied population can usually be relied upon to provide for themselves. Sure, times are harsh during war, but I doubt that civilians in German-occupied area were worse off than those in USSR. Also, the Ukrainians were fresh out of Holodomor, so I bet the comparison was tilted in favour of Germany anyway...
Anyway, I am not saying that the Germans should have pampered everyone they conquered. I am saying that if their political agenda had included simply overthrowing Soviet regime and replacing it with friendlier client states, instead of wanting to conquer and subjugate USSR in its entirety, things might have been different.


During the war, many Wehrmacht units were aghast at the sight of starving, sickly occupied and imprisoned populations, and they requested supplies to feed them, but such requests were denied because the German logistics and resources were strained already vastly by the occupation of the entire Europe and vast swathe of USSR. A lot of Nazi Germany's murderousness had to do with its madness and pathetic weakness, not with its terrible strength.

Now, contemplate possibility, that the population was starving and sickly not (only) because of Nazi invasion but (largely also) because of earlier Soviet domestic policies...

So what you're saying is not realistic at all. It's a remaining vestige of anticommie propaganda.

I just know that Germans (who had conquered pagan Estonia in XIIIth century, forced population into serfdom, divided land between their manors and whose Landeswehr was kicked out of here as recently as 1919) were not exactly popular in Estonian Republic pre-1939, but rather hated. It took Stalin less than a year to make us LOVE them. And this is not propaganda, but lots of firsthand memories from people I personally know.

I still remain confident that had Germany not been a Dumbass and held off on Barbarossa, they would have won, hands down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

The link is about author, whose works (which I personally believe) deal with one possible explanation, why Germany made such a suicidal attempt to attack USSR .

Short extract:
Suvorov's most controversial idea was that Stalin had planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the “Icebreaker”) against the West. For this reason Stalin had provided significant material and political support to Adolf Hitler, and at the same time was preparing the Red Army to “liberate” the whole of Europe from Nazi occupation. Suvorov argued that Hitler had lost World War II from the very moment he attacked Poland, because not only was he going to war with the Allies, it was only a matter of time before the Soviet Union would attack him from his rear at the most appropriate moment. This left Hitler with no other choice but to launch a preemptive strike on the Soviet Union while Stalin's forces had redeployed from a defensive to an offensive posture, providing Hitler with an important initial tactical advantage. But this was strategically hopeless since the Germans now had to fight on two fronts, a mistake Hitler himself had identified as Germany's undoing in the previous war. In the end therefore, Stalin was able to achieve some of his objectives by establishing Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, China, and North Korea. According to Suvorov, this made Stalin the primary winner of World War II.

I agree that in time Russia would have expanded it's regime into eastern if not all of Europe by turning on the Germans, the point I was trying to make is that if the Germans had stuck it out a little longer and not attacked the Russians, they would be in a better position to attack them a year or so later, and even if Russia struck first the germans would only be fighting resistance movements in the west, not all out wars and again, would be in a better position then the one they put themselves in by attacking when they did.

good article btw.

True. However, I believe that is particular case in an exception, since USSR was not a national state, but in essence a huge colonial empire that had emerged from revolution and civil war just two decades ago and which had seriously suppressed all nations it contained, even Russians.

Uh, the Soviet Union -- Russian Empire basically -- was still very much a nationalist state. Stalin had no qualms with evoking nationalistic and jingoistic emotions among Russians. He even changed Soviet uniforms, all of them, from the peasant's and worker's army style back into the imperial Russian style.

Those millions of USSR citizens fighting on German side were not fiction.

A million man organized pro-German partisan military is most likely fiction. The German's faced enormous partisan activity, which especially targetted logistics. The German solution was to viciously attack civilian communities that supported these partisans, and it was an effective tactic because it had worked in the past.

If the Germans had been more gentle with the occupied population, they would've likely met more resistence. Not the opposite.

They were mismanaged.They were given no hope for even puppet government, but still they joined Nazis against USSR.

Who?


You need to feed prisoners.

They couldn't afford it. Make no mistake, the German army and German economy was very poor throughout the war. The idea that the German army was a fully motorized modern army that invaded the plains of Russia, is a cold war myth. The Germans lacked everything from fuel to labour, from food to ball bearings. The amount of fuel that Germans considered sufficient would've caused alarm in London had the British fuel supply levels diminished to the same level. For example, Germans used trucks only for some units, railroads were insuffiecent in Russia and the roads -- well, roads were starkly nonexistent in Russia. The backbone of German logistics always were horses.

Now, by the time Russia could begin massive tanks production, Germany simply had no chance. The Soviets could always fall back a little, burn the infrastructure, withdraw industries into the urals, and tire out the Germans, while factories in the Urals would forge and assemble tanks all the time at a rate which the Germans could not compete.

Other occupied population can usually be relied upon to provide for themselves.


Nope, even in the Benelux countries people were protesting for the lack of food under the nazi occupation.

Sure, times are harsh during war, but I doubt that civilians in German-occupied area were worse off than those in USSR. Also, the Ukrainians were fresh out of Holodomor, so I bet the comparison was tilted in favour of Germany anyway...
Anyway, I am not saying that the Germans should have pampered everyone they conquered. I am saying that if their political agenda had included simply overthrowing Soviet regime and replacing it with friendlier client states, instead of wanting to conquer and subjugate USSR in its entirety, things might have been different.

Now, contemplate possibility, that the population was starving and sickly not (only) because of Nazi invasion but (largely also) because of earlier Soviet domestic policies...

Well, no. A full scale invasion would (and did) disrupt the distributing and producing institutions, which would cause suffering and havoc more so than under soviet rule.

Uh, the Soviet Union -- Russian Empire basically -- was still very much a nationalist state. Stalin had no qualms with evoking nationalistic and jingoistic emotions among Russians. He even changed Soviet uniforms, all of them, from the peasant's and worker's army style back into the imperial Russian style.
True, Stalin turned to evoking nationalistic emotions once he saw that he needed these. Earlier years of USSR were much different in this regard.


Who?
Check the feldgrau article above...


They couldn't afford it...
True. Germany's resources were extremely stretched. Yet, giving up downright racist politics would have been essentially free. Leaflets do not cost that much as well.

Nope, even in the Benelux countries people were protesting for the lack of food under the nazi occupation.
I can buy that they were obviously used with better conditions. :) I kept Eastern Front in mind, anyway.

Well, no. A full scale invasion would (and did) disrupt the distributing and producing institutions, which would cause suffering and havoc more so than under soviet rule.
Absolutely - only that this "distribution" was preceded by "collection" or even "confiscation"... and you do not become a ghastly image of malnourishment just within few weeks...

Anyway, the truth is probably somewhere in between. I am willing to change my original statement that "Hitler could probably have caused an all-out revolution and overthrown Soviet government, had he only tried" into "He might have had some chance of doing it, had he only tried (or at least he might have managed to escape complete failure and capitulation in the end)". Well, he didn't try.

A million man organized pro-German partisan military is most likely fiction. The German's faced enormous partisan activity, which especially targetted logistics. The German solution was to viciously attack civilian communities that supported these partisans, and it was an effective tactic because it had worked in the past.

George F. Nafziger's work is a pretty good source, and even if you're inclined to disbelieve that figure his source for it would seem to be German reports conducted during the war rather than speculation after it. Although you could question how pro-German much of the military were as opposed to anti-Soviet, and debate just what is meant by organised the figure of around a million former USSR citizens serving in the Wehrmacht is probably about right.

Which isn't to say that the Germans didn't face enormous partisan movements because they did, but a great deal of the time the foreign formations in the SS and Wehrmacht were actually employed in anti-partisan operations giving an interesting twist to the fighting behind the lines. It goes some way to explaining why the Heer were so adamant that these troops remain, because if they were disbanded it would leave the Heer picking up more responsibility for rear-areas operations thus weakening its front line stregnth.