I've heard it said a few times, that if only the Nazis supported the national liberation struggles in the USSR, and anticommunist Russians, then the USSR would have fallen. I even heard this from the professor who taught my Soviet history course. But could the Nazis have realistically done this?
The first major issue is Nazi ideology. OTL the Nazis viewed the east as a colonial space, whose resources and peoples were to be viciously exploited for the benefit of the Volk, and which were eventually to be conquered and settled by Germans. Obviously this is incompatible with the ideals of anti-Soviet nationalists and anticommunist Russians. For example, the Ukraine was to become Germany's breadbasket, and the Ukrainians were to become as Helots, with all surplus food sent to the Reich. The Ukraine was to be deurbanized and deindustrialized, and many millions of Ukrainians were to be starved to death or forcibly deported to Siberia (see the Hunger Plan and the various drafts of Generalplan Ost.) Getting the Nazis to abandon these ideas seems extremely difficult. Ideas of expanding east had been spread by the far right since the late nineteenth century, and during the First World War, there was discussion among the leadership of annexing and ethnically cleansing a "Polish Border Strip". So changing the Nazi worldview doesn't seem likely.
But let's assume that Hitler has one of his moments of "genius" and decides to temporarily support nationalist and anticommunist forces in the USSR before betraying them after Stalin's defeat. Would this work? I still think there are potentially unsolvable issues, namely food and supplies for these Nazi auxiliaries, as well as their effectiveness.
OTL Hitler and other leaders were extremely concerned about the food situation in the Reich. Germany was heavily dependent on imports, and Hitler feared a repeat of the starvation that occurred in the First World War. There was also the need to supply German and other Axis forces in the east. Given that food was limited, the Nazis made the deliberate decision to feed the German people and the Axis armed forces, and starve millions of people in occupied Europe, especially in Poland the the USSR. So there will in all probability not be enough food to supply the Reich, the Axis soldiers and the peoples of the USSR. I am not even sure they would be able to supply much to any nationalist Ukrainian or Baltic military force. OTL's collaborationist groups, like the Estonian, Latvian and Galician SS divisions were small. Would there be enough food for armies? For their families? For their nations?
There is also the issue of equipping the army. OTL the Nazis operated a patchwork force, which used materiel looted from across occupied Europe. For example, IIRC, most trucks used in Barbarossa were stolen from France. While they could use looted Soviet equipment, would that be enough to supply the nationalist and anticommunist forces?
Lastly, how effective would these forces be? OTL collaborationist groups like Vlasov's army barely saw action, and others, such as the Georgian and Armenian forces, defected as soon as they could. How effective would anti-Soviet forces be if Hitler "liberated" the East?
There are various other factors outside of German control, such as the successful evacuation of industry beyond the Urals, and the USSR's growing armaments industry. The USSR would also still receive lend lease, and the Nazis still need to also fight the Americans and the British.
All this leads me to believe that, in the unlikely event that Hitler tries to liberate the east, German victory is still unlikely.
The first major issue is Nazi ideology. OTL the Nazis viewed the east as a colonial space, whose resources and peoples were to be viciously exploited for the benefit of the Volk, and which were eventually to be conquered and settled by Germans. Obviously this is incompatible with the ideals of anti-Soviet nationalists and anticommunist Russians. For example, the Ukraine was to become Germany's breadbasket, and the Ukrainians were to become as Helots, with all surplus food sent to the Reich. The Ukraine was to be deurbanized and deindustrialized, and many millions of Ukrainians were to be starved to death or forcibly deported to Siberia (see the Hunger Plan and the various drafts of Generalplan Ost.) Getting the Nazis to abandon these ideas seems extremely difficult. Ideas of expanding east had been spread by the far right since the late nineteenth century, and during the First World War, there was discussion among the leadership of annexing and ethnically cleansing a "Polish Border Strip". So changing the Nazi worldview doesn't seem likely.
But let's assume that Hitler has one of his moments of "genius" and decides to temporarily support nationalist and anticommunist forces in the USSR before betraying them after Stalin's defeat. Would this work? I still think there are potentially unsolvable issues, namely food and supplies for these Nazi auxiliaries, as well as their effectiveness.
OTL Hitler and other leaders were extremely concerned about the food situation in the Reich. Germany was heavily dependent on imports, and Hitler feared a repeat of the starvation that occurred in the First World War. There was also the need to supply German and other Axis forces in the east. Given that food was limited, the Nazis made the deliberate decision to feed the German people and the Axis armed forces, and starve millions of people in occupied Europe, especially in Poland the the USSR. So there will in all probability not be enough food to supply the Reich, the Axis soldiers and the peoples of the USSR. I am not even sure they would be able to supply much to any nationalist Ukrainian or Baltic military force. OTL's collaborationist groups, like the Estonian, Latvian and Galician SS divisions were small. Would there be enough food for armies? For their families? For their nations?
There is also the issue of equipping the army. OTL the Nazis operated a patchwork force, which used materiel looted from across occupied Europe. For example, IIRC, most trucks used in Barbarossa were stolen from France. While they could use looted Soviet equipment, would that be enough to supply the nationalist and anticommunist forces?
Lastly, how effective would these forces be? OTL collaborationist groups like Vlasov's army barely saw action, and others, such as the Georgian and Armenian forces, defected as soon as they could. How effective would anti-Soviet forces be if Hitler "liberated" the East?
There are various other factors outside of German control, such as the successful evacuation of industry beyond the Urals, and the USSR's growing armaments industry. The USSR would also still receive lend lease, and the Nazis still need to also fight the Americans and the British.
All this leads me to believe that, in the unlikely event that Hitler tries to liberate the east, German victory is still unlikely.