WI: Hitler Allies with Ukrainians Rebels during WWII

OTL, Hitler never allied with the Ukrainians, because he thought they were subhuman. However, some suggest, that it would have been smart for him to arm the Ukrainians against the Soviet Union (who were bitter at Moscow for the famine) rather than make them his enemy, which he did OTL. I also think to further this idea, we could also see the formation of the puppet Russian Liberation Army much sooner. I don't believe Hitler would have won, but I believe had he taken these measures, he would have cut further into Russia than he did OTL. Perhaps he could set up a Ukrainian Puppet State and rather than trying to exterminate the Russians, could have tried setting up a Russian Puppet State when he gets that far. Does this idea have tl potential?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
OTL, Hitler never allied with the Ukrainians, because he thought they were subhuman. However, some suggest, that it would have been smart for him to arm the Ukrainians against the Soviet Union (who were bitter at Moscow for the famine) rather than make them his enemy, which he did OTL. I also think to further this idea, we could also see the formation of the puppet Russian Liberation Army much sooner. I don't believe Hitler would have won, but I believe had he taken these measures, he would have cut further into Russia than he did OTL. Perhaps he could set up a Ukrainian Puppet State and rather than trying to exterminate the Russians, could have tried setting up a Russian Puppet State when he gets that far. Does this idea have tl potential?
Hitler must not exist.
 
Hitler wanted much of Eastern Europe for Lebensraum, which meant the conquered lands would be for the German people. Hitler would laugh at the idea of giving Ukrainians any autonomy, since he considered Slavs to be Untermensch. Hitler was too committed to his beliefs to EVER consider that prospect. Either the the partisans are killed or are converted into slaves. In order for this to be plausible, Nazism in general would not be present at all.
 

Insider

Banned
Actually it would be pretty much war-winning move had it happened. It do not have to be a honest one as well. There is nothing that stops Nazis from tearing up treaties with Ukrainian Free State once they are done with USSR.
 
Actually it would be pretty much war-winning move had it happened. It do not have to be a honest one as well. There is nothing that stops Nazis from tearing up treaties with Ukrainian Free State once they are done with USSR.
This. Hitler can be his usual self here, and just postpone the implementation of his plans. He had given Slovaks a state of sorts- thus it is not inconceivable that Ukrainians get something, temporarily.
 
Interesting premise. An alliance with Ukraine would put a serious hurt on the partisan activity.
Could the improved supply lines and extra manpower have prevented the disaster at Stalingrad?

Going by gut feeling I'd say that Nazi Germany is still defeated, maybe even earlier because the eastern front would move further east and eat up more German resources.

Could reinforcements from Ukraine have resulted in the capture of Leningrad and the KV-1 production plant? If so the KV tank could be a worthwhile addition to the German Allies (Romania and Italy).

Encounters with the KV tank would most likely spur the Introduction of the firefly variant of the Sherman.
 
Interesting premise. An alliance with Ukraine would put a serious hurt on the partisan activity.
Could the improved supply lines and extra manpower have prevented the disaster at Stalingrad?

Going by gut feeling I'd say that Nazi Germany is still defeated, maybe even earlier because the eastern front would move further east and eat up more German resources.

Could reinforcements from Ukraine have resulted in the capture of Leningrad and the KV-1 production plant? If so the KV tank could be a worthwhile addition to the German Allies (Romania and Italy).

Encounters with the KV tank would most likely spur the Introduction of the firefly variant of the Sherman.
Stalingrad would fall quickly here, since Ukraine falls faster than in OTL. Ukrainians can stay in the south. as for Leningrad, the collapse of the southern front might mean it would not get reinforcements.
 
Stalingrad would fall quickly here, since Ukraine falls faster than in OTL. Ukrainians can stay in the south. as for Leningrad, the collapse of the southern front might mean it would not get reinforcements.

The lack of reinforcements for Leningrad may not be significant since the terrain and lack of infrastructure for the logistics train there was by far the largest hindrance.
 

Insider

Banned
This. Hitler can be his usual self here, and just postpone the implementation of his plans. He had given Slovaks a state of sorts- thus it is not inconceivable that Ukrainians get something, temporarily.
It wouldn't be first, and I would belive hardly last time when Nazis first promised peace and cooperation and just waited until politics would switch to more favourable arrangement. Czechs learned it hard in March of 1939. Poles had to only wait till September. Since they did it once, twice, and German commanders praised the utility of Russian and Ukrainian Hilfswilliger and straight asked Berlin to made some agreement with anti-soviet elements in USSR, it is not beyond imagination that they could made temporary treaty.

Interesting premise. An alliance with Ukraine would put a serious hurt on the partisan activity.
Could the improved supply lines and extra manpower have prevented the disaster at Stalingrad?

Going by gut feeling I'd say that Nazi Germany is still defeated, maybe even earlier because the eastern front would move further east and eat up more German resources.

Could reinforcements from Ukraine have resulted in the capture of Leningrad and the KV-1 production plant? If so the KV tank could be a worthwhile addition to the German Allies (Romania and Italy).

Encounters with the KV tank would most likely spur the Introduction of the firefly variant of the Sherman.

To list targets Wehrmacht failed to reach ITTL: Murmansk, Leningrad, Moscov, Volga (Stalingrad was nice to seize, but actually it could be just bombed to the ground), Oil Fields. I feel that take two rule would apply here. Had two of these fell, USSR would lose the rest, and wouldn't be able to continue war.
Don't forget that existance of some "Ukrainian" or "Russian" government would be great propaganda victory for Germans. The rank and file Ivan was already more afraid of his commisar than belived him in 1941. If surrendering looks like a viable option, and you don't as much want to risk your life for Stalin ...

I am sure of one thing regardless, Kirov Plant in Leningrad would be ruins and twisted metal once Germans reach it.
 
Actually it would be pretty much war-winning move had it happened. It do not have to be a honest one as well. There is nothing that stops Nazis from tearing up treaties with Ukrainian Free State once they are done with USSR.
The Germans needed Ukraine's agricultural production given their own deficiencies (and the deficiencies of occupied Europe) in such regards. Ukraine, especially during the war, did not produce enough of a surplus to supply their own internal needs while also supplying German requisitions. The Germans therefor must make a choice; let the Ukrainians keep their food and Germans (or occupied territories but that'll remove any utility of theirs to the German war effort and enhance their own resistance movements) starve, or take the Ukrainian food for themselves. The Nazis would never choose the former option (few governments would choose to let their own citizens starve for the survival of another nation's people), and therefor will requisition the Ukrainian food and will implement policies designed to maximize the amount they can get out of Ukraine, such as by destroying the cities. Any government which cooperates with the Germans in such regards will have zero legitimacy. This is not something that can wait until after the war; the Germans need that food now to keep the war effort going.
 
I seriously wonder why we cannot posit less evil Nazis, but smarter Nazis.

For example, we already know that a bombastic loon can get into power (i.e. Trump.) However, there is nothing inconsistent with a loon being perhaps more pragmatic (i.e. Stalin.)

So, being that the Ukrainians were willing to cooperate and IOTL cooperated quite a bit considering they got totally screwed (kinda shows how much worse Stalin's screwing was as long as you were not Jewish), we can get an interesting POD which can pay big Nazi dividends.

Simply do not arrest Bandera and company right away. Nazi propaganda to their own people stated that it was 1. a pre-emptive strike and 2. a war of liberation for the subjugated peoples of Eastern Europe. So, even if we hear posters point out that Hitler wanted his Lebensraum and bullcrap like that, it's not like Hitler is such a nice guy he would not dare lying to people. The Nazis worked out deals with the Slovaks, Croats, and "mongolized" Hungarians. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Hitler would work out a deal with the Ukrainians with the same propagandized line. They did that in the Baltic states after all, and long term plans for Ostplan were to depopulate them. So, we already have an OTL example of Hitler playing the short term pragmatist by not killing people that he otherwise planned on killing or expelling from their lands.

This begs the question, so why didn't he? Simple answer: Standard thought in the West during the time was that France was a tougher nut to crack than the Soviet Union. Hitler cracked that nut, so the USSR would be easy. Germany had beat them before in WW1 after all. So, if the USSR is collapsing quicker than terminal velocity, why on Earth not imprison Bandera and other Ukrainian nationalists who will make your job as an occupier harder when you are ready to rape Ukraine.

What we would need is a POD that alters Nazi thinking that a long war with Russia may be necessary. Many here will groan that Hitler only got into short, easy-to-win wars but I call shenanigans on this. Hitler did not think France was going to fall in 6 weeks. He was thinking of a multi-year campaign. So, if Hitler was ready to waste years in France, it is not beyond the realm of possibility he would consider the same for his precious lebensraum.

In short, here is my POD. Finland loses winter war easily. Let's just say that luck goes Russia's way and they steamroll Finland, and annex more Finnish territory (but not the whole country). Now, Russia has hubris and does not confront some of their more systematic problems with their military.

After beating France, Hitler decides that he will have to pre-emptively attack Russia, but plans that it would be a long war. German plans are to break the back of the Soviet military with double-envelopments, so the frontal assaults favored in the Baltics and Ukraine are dumped in favor of a more tactical strategy.

Things go awry when Zhukov gets his way with Stalin's blessing and pre-emptively attacks the Germans on June 10, 1941 with 175 divisions. After making some initial headway, the Soviet colossus bogs down. Hitler declares war and German preparations to pinch off Russian spearheads are surprisingly good and by early August 1941, the front lines are roughly where they were IOTL. During this time, Hitler made guarentees to anti-Soviet, including Bandera, and though things are going well the initial show of Soviet strength intimidates the Germans from being overly-ambitious--especially when they start seeing just how many reserves the Russians have, even after losing so many divisions so quickly.

__

Now, if Germany roughly ends 1941 where they did IOTL and are working with the Ukrainians pragmatically, just what good would a liberated Ukraine be? Less partisans I guess, and additional cannon-fodder in the East. I imagine they'd be used to help clear Belarussian partisans and perhaps bolster the Italians, Romanians, and Hungarians after Stalingrad. How big would their numbers be? Perhaps larger than we think, as the Germans captured plenty of Ukrainian soldiers IOTL, they would simply be repatriated to Bandera.

Ultimately, I see Ukrainians as of little practical value when Germany is on the offensive, but from 43-44 they would be a massive thorn in the Soviet Union's side. It might very well butterfly away Bagration, which has huge repercussions, because even another 1.5 million poorly armed Ukrainians is enough of a thorn where the Russians cannot simply allow that large of a military threat to continue.
 
The Germans needed Ukraine's agricultural production given their own deficiencies (and the deficiencies of occupied Europe) in such regards. Ukraine, especially during the war, did not produce enough of a surplus to supply their own internal needs while also supplying German requisitions. The Germans therefor must make a choice; let the Ukrainians keep their food and Germans (or occupied territories but that'll remove any utility of theirs to the German war effort and enhance their own resistance movements) starve, or take the Ukrainian food for themselves. The Nazis would never choose the former option (few governments would choose to let their own citizens starve for the survival of another nation's people), and therefor will requisition the Ukrainian food and will implement policies designed to maximize the amount they can get out of Ukraine, such as by destroying the cities. Any government which cooperates with the Germans in such regards will have zero legitimacy. This is not something that can wait until after the war; the Germans need that food now to keep the war effort going.

Isn't agricultural production much more efficient when you don't kill all the farmers?
 
The Germans needed Ukraine's agricultural production given their own deficiencies (and the deficiencies of occupied Europe) in such regards. Ukraine, especially during the war, did not produce enough of a surplus to supply their own internal needs while also supplying German requisitions. The Germans therefor must make a choice; let the Ukrainians keep their food and Germans (or occupied territories but that'll remove any utility of theirs to the German war effort and enhance their own resistance movements) starve, or take the Ukrainian food for themselves. The Nazis would never choose the former option (few governments would choose to let their own citizens starve for the survival of another nation's people), and therefor will requisition the Ukrainian food and will implement policies designed to maximize the amount they can get out of Ukraine, such as by destroying the cities. Any government which cooperates with the Germans in such regards will have zero legitimacy. This is not something that can wait until after the war; the Germans need that food now to keep the war effort going.

From what I understand this only became true in late 42 and 43 . Before that Germany was able to feed it self, but the harsher winters caused a lower harvest.
 
I seriously wonder why we cannot posit less evil Nazis, but smarter Nazis.

For example, we already know that a bombastic loon can get into power (i.e. Trump.) However, there is nothing inconsistent with a loon being perhaps more pragmatic (i.e. Stalin.)

Hitler could be dangerously pragmatic at times to get into power and slowly consolidate control of Central Europe in the 30s, but he was already starting to get further out there on drugs, dementia and victory disease.

Still not impossible for him to have accepted the argument hey we can use the Ukrainians and stab them in the back later even then.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Germans needed Ukraine's agricultural production given their own deficiencies (and the deficiencies of occupied Europe) in such regards. Ukraine, especially during the war, did not produce enough of a surplus to supply their own internal needs while also supplying German requisitions. The Germans therefor must make a choice; let the Ukrainians keep their food and Germans (or occupied territories but that'll remove any utility of theirs to the German war effort and enhance their own resistance movements) starve, or take the Ukrainian food for themselves. The Nazis would never choose the former option (few governments would choose to let their own citizens starve for the survival of another nation's people), and therefor will requisition the Ukrainian food and will implement policies designed to maximize the amount they can get out of Ukraine, such as by destroying the cities. Any government which cooperates with the Germans in such regards will have zero legitimacy. This is not something that can wait until after the war; the Germans need that food now to keep the war effort going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
Part of that depends on which areas of Ukraine you mean. The UPA had it's support in the areas west of the Dniepr, so theoretically they could feed their people and organize a government based in Kiev, giving surpluses to the Germans, while then starving the pro-Russian/Soviet populations east of the Dniepr. People with a Ukrainian identity then had a major split geographically much as they do now:
6302493.jpg


It isn't inconceivable that to eliminate potential sources of resistance to their rule they'd use food as a weapon to deal with Russian identity civilian populations to create their visions of a 'mono-ethnic state'. Given that people that considered themselves Ukrainian, not Russian, was probably less than half the population of geographic Ukraine, there are a lot of people that the UPA would see as threats to their regime and potentially disposable in the search for food for the war effort. Besides it is not like they couldn't ration either.
 
I think the best way to get this outcome is for pre-Führer Hitler to decide the Ukrainians (or at least a large part of them) aren't really Slavs but Slavic speaking Ostrogoths or something stupid like that. In light of Hitler's racialist thinking, this both explains Kievan Rus (Totally Not Slavic) and justifies outreach to Ukrainian nationalists. Sure, eventually they'll need to be brought in line, but the Reich treating Ukrainians with the relative liberality extended to Danes and Norwegians will certainly have an impact.
 
Hitler could be dangerously pragmatic at times to get into power and slowly consolidate control of Central Europe in the 30s, but he was already starting to get further out there on drugs, dementia and victory disease.

Still not impossible for him to have accepted the argument hey we can use the Ukrainians and stab them in the back later even then.
Wiking once posited a "no Dr. Morrell" POD. Yes, a lack of drugs (or different view of the USSR before Barbarossa) can easily make the approach towards Ukraine more pragmatic.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wiking, what kind of military force can the collaborationist UPA muster?
Look at OTL's numbers. They weren't particularly effective in actual combat and were not really trusted by the Germans. Likely they'd be more useful for rear area security, administration, non-combat support, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Ukrainian_Nationalists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army
Going by the above it seems their primary base of support was in Polish Galicia where the Soviets hadn't been able to suppress them and large numbers had fled during Stalin's persecution of Ukrainian Nationalism. Maybe 200k men? Part of that though was a heavy suppression of the movement by the Germans. With active support who knows? I'm not sure how good their combat value would be and they'd probably require German officers and ex-Soviet army NCOs and Officers that had been captured in 1941 and then vetted for anti-Soviet combat duties (I mean ethnic Ukrainian PoWs). Don't expect eastern manpower to be an answer to Germany's combat numbers problem, but they could be a useful supplement in terms of organizing food requisition, labor, non-combat military duty, and anti-partisan work if the Germans act in good faith and support the Bandera-ist movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act
 
Yeah, but the Germans did not work with them from the get go. What can a full-blown collaborationist Ukraine accomplish? And how hard would it be for the USSR to r-occupy them once that can of worms is opened?
 
Top