Germany limits war aims in Barbarossa to Brest-Litovsk borders

The Brest-Litovsk borders in the Belarus-Poland area were actually more favorable to the Soviets than what they got in the interwar period after the Treaty of Riga!
 
"The Nazis began the systematic mass murder Jews with the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941.
At first, hundreds of thousands of Jews were shot by Einsatzgruppen and other units. However, this method quickly proved inefficient enough by Nazi standards, and they began searching for other murder methods.
Chelmno was the first extermination camp to be established. Located near Lodz, it was put into operation on December 8, 1941."

From the beginning. We cannot ignore that was planned from the start.
You said their initial goal was to kill every Jew on the planet. This was their later goal, but to begin with they wanted to just dispossess and deport them. Plenty of killings and beatings of course, but they as an entity did not want to go to the trouble of killing every last one. Of course they have most of the European Jews under their aegis here and are going to get rid of them at some point. Your initial post didn't give a date so I was assuming you meant from the founding of the party or the beginning of WWII.
 
The German war aims in WW2 were not territorial but political, their goals was to destroy Communism and Slavic civilisation, and once that was done take the land. This was in stark contrast with war aims in WW1, even toward the radicalised end, where Germany wasn't out to destroy Russian monarchy or the French republic but rather wreck their alliance, take buffer territories to enhance German security and wealth in a world where both still existed.

Thus it was impossible for the Nazis to have limited war aims, and even if they didn't Stalin entertained unlimited war aims for himself in the form of a drastic expansion of Soviet controlled communism.
 
The German war aims in WW2 were not territorial but political, their goals was to destroy Communism and Slavic civilisation, and once that was done take the land. This was in stark contrast with war aims in WW1, even toward the radicalised end, where Germany wasn't out to destroy Russian monarchy or the French republic but rather wreck their alliance, take buffer territories to enhance German security and wealth in a world where both still existed.

Thus it was impossible for the Nazis to have limited war aims, and even if they didn't Stalin entertained unlimited war aims for himself in the form of a drastic expansion of Soviet controlled communism.

I get your point but I can see some PoDs where this changes. Perhaps Hitler dies sometime right before or after Barbarossa? Perhaps Germany does a little worse, decide to stop advancing and go all out on defense. Perhaps they receive better intelligence on Russian reserves and realize they cannot conquer to the A-A line?

I just think that a PoD exists where Germany decides to go for Brest-Litovsk type settlement.
 
I get your point but I can see some PoDs where this changes. Perhaps Hitler dies sometime right before or after Barbarossa? Perhaps Germany does a little worse, decide to stop advancing and go all out on defense. Perhaps they receive better intelligence on Russian reserves and realize they cannot conquer to the A-A line?

I just think that a PoD exists where Germany decides to go for Brest-Litovsk type settlement.
If Nazism was rational, then yeah. But it isn't, historically when they got help from collaborators in Soviets, instead of rewarding them, they punished them and alienated the people who initially supported them. Their whole ideology makes Brest-Litovsk highly implausible
 
If Nazism was rational, then yeah. But it isn't, historically when they got help from collaborators in Soviets, instead of rewarding them, they punished them and alienated the people who initially supported them. Their whole ideology makes Brest-Litovsk highly implausible

would quibble a bit with that, it makes the success of collaboration highly implausible, for instance the Nazi regime was able to grasp the benefits of collaboration with Vichy regime but could/would not execute their side of the bargain, not signing a final treaty and dealing away French territory.
 
If Nazism was rational, then yeah. But it isn't, historically when they got help from collaborators in Soviets, instead of rewarding them, they punished them and alienated the people who initially supported them. Their whole ideology makes Brest-Litovsk highly implausible

Weren't Nazis successful in doing this in Yugoslavia? There they gained allies amongst some Southern Slavs like Croats and Slovenians to oppose other Slavs like Serbs. It seems like they could have played the same game in Russia (Baltics, Ukrainians, Belarussians vs Russians) too.
 
Weren't Nazis successful in doing this in Yugoslavia? There they gained allies amongst some Southern Slavs like Croats and Slovenians to oppose other Slavs like Serbs. It seems like they could have played the same game in Russia (Baltics, Ukrainians, Belarussians vs Russians) too.
Except they never planned a genocide of Croats but they planned one of Ukrainians, Belarusssians, etc.
 
Top