It's often said If the Germans went as liberators instead of being as insanely brutal as possible in the invasion of the U.S.S.R. that it may have been enough for Germany to win. what do you think?
How much difference might it have made in Barbarossa?

That would have meant more volunteers for the army, and a better flow of supplies due to decrease of guerilla activity. I see no implication for the Soviet side as they had lost access to the resources and manpower in occupied lands anyway.

__________________

I think it would have done wonders for the Germans. Just in doing that the Germans probably would have had the vast majority of the Ukraine on their side as well as the peasant population of Soviet Russia plagued by the collective farms. I could also see this having a huge demoralizing effect on the rest of the Soviet population as well as a big moral boost for the individual German soldier who instead of merely fighting another man's war would actually be feeling good about his mission. Of course Hitler could have gone about all of this and then once he had gained the support of the population, carry out his ill intentions.

__________________

While this would be true, I feel that from the reports and some diary entries written by general enlisted soldier's that have been published the Germans felt that they were invaders given the right to capture and possess as much of Europe as they could. There was no way that the German command and Hitler in particular could have changed their point of view.

There was too much of the "master race" programmed into the commanders and officers for the 'liberator' mentality to be effective. I do understand that much of the Axis forces were simply following orders but there is too much national pride for them to go against the wishes of the high command.

Ah but this is a what if. Has the Germans arrived as liberators, they would have had a huge amount of manpower to draw upon and that would have been the downfall of Stalin and communism. Socialism was an intriguing concept and was becoming popular if only to combat communism. I believe the trueist example of national socialism would be in Mussolini's Italy. It was devoid of the anti semitic rheotric and solely focused on the people.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I think that if anything, North Africa is a prime example of this.

The Germans/Italians were seen as liberators in North Africa. There was no partisan activity or anything of the like in North Africa. I believe that i read somewhere that the Locals did view the Germans as liberators from the Empirical Rule of the British.

On the same note, i am not sure if any volunteered to fight with the DAK but i am sure that any partisan activity during that campaign would have had devastating effects.

__________________

I'd be surprised, as Lybia, the main theatre of war, was an Italian colony and the Germans did not stay long enough in Egypt, which by then was an independent kingdom anyway, although a protectorate. Tunisia was a French colony.

Sometimes one has to look from a different angle to what one reads to see whether it is propaganda or not.

And in Egypt the population is concentrated in the Nile Valley and Delta, all the rest is the Western Desert and by Desert they mean desert. So not too many malcontents there except for the odd bedouin who will say whatever you want to hear provided he has anything to gain by it. (This is my cynical streak speaking. )

__________________