WI Hitler decides to treat some ethnic groups in the USSR better than he did OTL?

What if Hitler decided to postpone his extermination of the Slavs until after the Reich has militarily defeated the USSR? (AKA driven them beyond the Urals)
This would include treating some specifics ethnic groups (Baltics, Ukrainian, Cossack, Belorussian(?), Chechens) in the USSR better than they did OTL.

Examples of things they would do:
-letting the Ukrainians make their own country, given the Ukrainians supply food and all that stuff to the Reich for less and be a part of the Axis
-letting the Cossacks make their own country (Cossacks would make an effective anti-partisan force) -letting the Chechens make their own country (a German sponsored Chechen resistance in the Caucasus to assist Case Blue)
-active recruitment of Soviet POWs that belong to those groups into Ostlegions or Waffen-SS divisions
-releasing Soviet POWs that belonged to those groups after their homeland is captured and giving them better treatment while they are a POW
-accepting any genuine volunteers from the Soviet population (more Hiwis, less partisans, and less German troops getting lost in the vast wilderness)

At the same time Goebbels would amp up his anti-communist campaign among these specific ethnic groups to encourage cooperation and goodwill

The Holocaust will still be happening and Jews, Commies, Gypsies, Poles, etc. will still be killed. Maybe some Osttruppen will be assigned to assist the SS?

And in case anyone mentions the racial laws, they could literally make random excuses and just change them however they like

I'm not making Hitler a better person or changing Generalplan Ost, its just postponed until the USSR is pretty badly beaten up.
 
The wackadoo thing is that, because of how oppressive the Soviets had been, had Eastern Europeans actually been "liberated" (whatever that may mean with a dictatorship liberating them), there was actually a lot of potential support for the Germans.
 
While that might have allowed them to win the war it requires the nazis to not be nazis so this is pretty much ASB.

Note in the 1st post I said that Generalplan Ost is not cancelled, just postponed.
Hitler decides to let the Slavs kill each other, less undesirables to be liquidated.
And what I mentioned in the 1st post has lots of OTL examples.
Ukrainians, Cossacks, Chechen cooperated to a extent with the Germans.
And there were lots of Ostlegions, only they didn't fight as well as hoped.
 
The usual, the same as in the other 1,000 threads proposing this: the German 1941 offensive ends even worse for them than in OTL, due to the worsening of a logistical situation that was already a shambles in OTL.
 
The Heer starve 900000 pows instead of one million over 1941/2. The police battalion and einsatzgruppen rely more on the commissar and partisan order for Slav hunting and kill more Slavs due to more Baltic state hiwis.
 
Nazis can’t be notzis and still do what the Nazis did OTL
I really hate this argument, since the logic "that might happen but that's totally out of character" seems to only apply to nazi Germany, especially when there's evidence that this might happen. Example : they can just handwave it like with the Croats and Czech by some pseudo science evidence. Wasn't there some ss ideas about Ukrainian descended from vikings who founded Kiev? Or a simple change where nazi campaign focus more on anti communism?

Anyway I would argue it probably not enough to make the nazi wins the war, even if they have a few hundred thousand more troops(including garrison troops in Ukraine), the urals is too far away and the soviets wouldn't surrender, probably stalemate pass Moscow until dday, a year later atomic glow in Berlin. The iron curtain is then shifted to poland
 

Deleted member 94680

I really hate this argument, since the logic "that might happen but that's totally out of character" seems to only apply to nazi Germany, especially when there's evidence that this might happen. Example : they can just handwave it like with the Croats and Czech by some pseudo science evidence. Wasn't there some ss ideas about Ukrainian descended from vikings who founded Kiev? Or a simple change where nazi campaign focus more on anti communism?

Actually, I would argue the argument about “it might happen but it’s totally out of character” applies to everyone, as that is what makes good AH. To argue that the Nazis would change their ideas about Eastern European Slavs is to change the identity of the Nazis so totally it makes them not Nazis. Why, if the Nazis don’t despise (and want to exterminate) Slavs do they launch a Barbarossa that is remotely recognisable? Why do they have Einsatzgruppen? As to your Croat and Czech argument, there was realpolitik behind those decisions, they were useful. Yes, I realise the whole premise is the Ukrainians would be useful, and some were used by the Nazis, but to argue the whole country is left alone is, well totally out of character.
 
The reality is, that Europe could not support a war effort with the amount of food it had. Hitler liked the Greeks, but that did not stop him starving them when it came time to feed the troops in the east, that annoyed the Greeks leading to a bigger resistance, and it made Hitler more comofortable with committing atrocities there.

As long as there is a war going on, someone is going to be on the chopping block in order to free up the resources necessary for said conflict. It doesn't matter if Hitler took a better attitude to the war in the east, because ultimately, as long as the Ukrainians and other eastern people's are considered lesser than the Germans, they will be disregarded first in order to keep the war effort going.
 
I really hate this argument, since the logic "that might happen but that's totally out of character" seems to only apply to nazi Germany, especially when there's evidence that this might happen. Example : they can just handwave it like with the Croats and Czech by some pseudo science evidence. Wasn't there some ss ideas about Ukrainian descended from vikings who founded Kiev? Or a simple change where nazi campaign focus more on anti communism?

As I've said before, the Ukrainians stood in the way of the Germans' alleged need for Lebensraum, therefore they were Untermenschen, not the other way around.
 
We all know that the Nazi never ever made pragmatic short lived decision about whether groups was Aryan or not, which was why no one can ever find a example of a Slavic people, which was useful to the Nazi being declared Aryan./s

While this is unlikely to result in victory, this likely charge how the war goes, result in large number of the groups in question join the Volkdeutsche refugees, it slow down the Sovietsm fundamental change Soviet demographics after the War and change the Soviet post-War narrative. We may see a stronger Ukrainian identity after the War, attempts by USSR to assimilate Ukrainians and Belarussians into a Russian identity etc.
 
The German magazine SIGNAL had glossy pictorial stories of peasants in Ukraine and Belarus,happy to be free of the Judeo-Bolshevik yoke,all for the home front,letting the Volk see how Germany was liberating people.If the Nazis had come up with some pseudo East Goth nonsense and played the "free" Ukraine and White Russian cards,who knows how much trouble that would have caused the Soviets,they didn't have unlimited manpower,but like many AH stories,you'd have to change the mindset of the Nazi leadership.
 
We all know that the Nazi never ever made pragmatic short lived decision about whether groups was Aryan or not, which was why no one can ever find a example of a Slavic people, which was useful to the Nazi being declared Aryan./s

The point is that there was no need to classify, say, Croatians or Slovaks as non-Aryan. Croatia and Slovakia were not where the Germans were going to find their Lebensraum. The land and resources that were allegedly needed by the German people were in the USSR--including Ukraine. As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our prewar period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the prewar period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

"If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states." https://books.google.com/books?id=nV-N10gyoFwC&pg=PA249

In his Second Book, Hitler also rejects the idea that a German-Russian alliance would be possible once the "Jewish" Bolsheviks were overthrown. People who think that way, he stated, did not understand the "Slavic Folk Soul." No, it was better that the Bolsheviks had triumphed: "On the contrary, it is good fortune for the future that this development has taken place in just this way because, thereby, a spell has been broken which would have prevented us from seeking the goal of German foreign policy there where it solely and exclusively can lie: territory in the east." https://web.archive.org/web/2010061...sonline.com:80/PDF_Books/ZweitesBuch_wch7.pdf

Even if Hitler had spoken nicer words to the Ukrainians he could not hide the fact that Germany was after their land and resources--indeed that was at least a major part of the reason he invaded the USSR in the first place.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those things where to be able to do this you'd need a fundamentally different "national socialist" movement lead by a fundamentally different "Hitler." OTL, everything east of Germany (and, most likely, eventually west) was to eventually become German in the same way America annihilated the Native Americans.
 
I feel like it would be unrealistic for the Nazis to stop oppression of Slavs. However I think separating the Ukranians from the Slavs is possible. Even if they wanted to take that land after the war for colonization.

How much difference this would make in the war idk.
 
I feel like it would be unrealistic for the Nazis to stop oppression of Slavs. However I think separating the Ukranians from the Slavs is possible. Even if they wanted to take that land after the war for colonization.

How much difference this would make in the war idk.

Well, it shortens it considerably. Because these Ukrainian have to be fed, which means that Germany has to send food from Germany to the Heer in the east, instead of just taking it from the Ukrainians.

So the logistical burden increases, slowing the pace of Barbarossa and leaving the Soviets in better shape for their winter counteroffensive, both in terms of manpower and industry retain or evacuated.
 
There’s no changing the fact that Hitler covets the agricultural land of the Ukraine and the oil of the Caucasus. But there was significant collaboration IOTL by Ukrainians, as well as by Lithuanians, Hitler’s Untermenschen of the Baltics. There could have been more. What is necessary is not a drastic shift in Nazi racial theory, but a change in the way these people are exploited before Generalplan Ost rolls out in full force. The Nazis could have easily encouraged more collaboration. The average peasant hadn’t read Mein Kampf, and could easily be led by false hopes of a better life. Even many educated German Jews who had read Mein Kampf were willing to at least believe they could survive by cooperation, and the Nazis were quite willing to give them work. In other words, offering a slightly bigger carrot and a slightly smaller stick after Barbarossa only requires Hitler to change his means, not his ends.

In Ukraine, for example, an empty promise of an independent homeland would have encouraged collaboration. If Bandera is willing to go the way of Quisling, he could’ve been installed as a puppet; otherwise, Germany could be presented as a better alternative against Stalin and Russia. Perhaps cooperative peasants could be offered land in Russia, once the war was won.

It’s possible such measures wouldn’t work, and almost certain that the Nazis still lose the war. Hitler will, as IOTL, increasingly try to carry out his racial vision as he begins to lose the war. But for him to at least try to get more collaboration between Barbarossa and Stalingrad does not require a Notler.
 
Top