Would a smaller barbarossa work?

[BDV]

There was essentially no difference between Hitler and the OKH:they both agreed on Typhoon ...

... and like Barbarossa, Typhoon got utterly wrecked by each vonBlucher-wannabe gloryhounding on his own, the far and few between voices of reason drowning in a sea of "one last push" exhortations.

[Alixanther]

Your interpretation of plan A is not correct.

There was essentially no difference between Hitler and the OKH:they both agreed on Typhoon .

Huh? Barbarossa plan was nil before September: it was supposed to topple the Soviet regime in two months. It did not - so afterwards there's no Barbarossa plan, only frantic, ad-hoc contingency plans. Typhoon has no room on Barbarossa, so it must be seen as part of somewhat of a B plan.
Your interpretation of Typhoon as being part of plan A is not correct: in Barbarossa planning, ALL Soviet forces were supposed to be pocketed and destroyed in the western part of USSR. Not in Moscow.

There was a deliberate plan to starve Soviet population, in primis POWs, then city dwellers. The only thing that was not really planned in detail was how much should die, because, in typical nazi fashion, a lot was left to local initiatives of zealous subordinates. Even in the Heer, everybody from Halder down to the common Landser was fully aware that the Soviet population was to be spoiled of everything and left to starve by themselves. Luckily for the occupied regions, the Germans lacked sufficient forces to impose their draconian dreams of ethnic cleansing and mass starvation, so millions found a way to stay alive, through black market, bartering and any other form of compromise that could work for the purpose.
If the Germans were not able to actually killing 30 million (they came pretty close, nevertheless, if we put in the calculation also the military losses) it was not for a lack of motivation but only because they had not enough resources.

No, there was no deliberate plan. If someone had deliberate plans, that was the Soviet Union. It had deliberate plans to destroy Finland, Poland and Romania (alongside the Baltic States which it had already gobbled them up). Hitler realized he must do something before Soviet Union overrun every potential Axis ally in Eastern Europe. I should also remind you that the Ukrainians met Wehrmacht troops by bread and salt, giving the Roman salute on the streets. Most of the Western Soviet provinces met the Germans as liberators, not as occupiers. Not to mention you're actually contradicting yourself: if they had not enough military resources to implement their "plan", how on Earth were they supposed to devise such a thing? "Planning" something outside the realm of concrete possibilities is not a plan. More like a dream fantasy.

[ML59]

No, there was no deliberate plan. If someone had deliberate plans, that was the Soviet Union. It had deliberate plans to destroy Finland, Poland and Romania (alongside the Baltic States which it had already gobbled them up)

To destroy means to flatten, to make waste, to burn, to incinerate: never, never had Soviet Union such plans regarding Finland, Romania or any other country. To occupy, yes, to control politically, yes, to destroy no.

Hitler realized he must do something before Soviet Union overrun every potential Axis ally in Eastern Europe. I should also remind you that the Ukrainians met Wehrmacht troops by bread and salt, giving the Roman salute on the streets. Most of the Western Soviet provinces met the Germans as liberators, not as occupiers. Not to mention you're actually contradicting yourself: if they had not enough military resources to implement their "plan", how on Earth were they supposed to devise such a thing? "Planning" something outside the realm of concrete possibilities is not a plan. More like a dream fantasy.

They didn't have enough resources only because the Soviet Union was not destroyed in three months as envisaged. With the war dragging on, they could not de-mobilize troops at the front and they couldn't turn to internal security enough resources.
If you want to learn something about the German extermination war in the East, I suggest you, just for a quick reference, "Ostkrieg" by Stephen Fritz, an American professor of history that cannot be accused of being "communist". It could be a refreshing reading giving you a general, overall view about the Nazi plans and their implementation, including some details about the decision to kill millions of jews, starting from the Soviet ones.
Good reading!

[BDV]

To destroy means to flatten, to make waste, to burn, to incinerate: never, never had Soviet Union such plans regarding Finland, Romania or any other country. To occupy, yes, to control politically, yes, to destroy no.

It had and it did, not only Romania, but Czechoslovakia, Poland (lol), Bulgaria, Hungary, and Prussia. Forced bolshevization implied the destruction of the intimate fabric of society. Mass murder of the opponents, forced industrialization, forced kolhozovization, mass atheist indoctrination, the creation of the new socialist man and replacement of existing social order with the Bolshevik Paradise. "Destroy" is a much more appropriate term than the whitewashing term "control politically".

But you know, who I'm gonna believe a Haa'va'd trained, widely respected and cited, eminent historian, or my own lying memories?

If you want to learn something about the German extermination war in the East, I suggest you, just for a quick reference, "Ostkrieg" by Stephen Fritz, an American professor of history that cannot be accused of being "communist". It could be a refreshing reading giving you a general, overall view about the Nazi plans and their implementation, including some details about the decision to kill millions of jews, starting from the Soviet ones.

No need to do so, first hand stories of Auxiliaries being asked to "volunteer to shoot Jews and Bolshevik" were easy to come by in my youth. Once notices that the Wannsee Conference occurred AFTER Wehrmacht's "successful" solving of the "jewish question" in Bolshevik Russia*.

Of course, the payback for the 1941 "pire qu'un crime" junker shenanigans was plenty evident by 1943, (again by first hand recording) despite a tremendous changing of tack (e.g. providing civvies with food - "we'd give them food during the day and at night they'd snipe us!").

Bottom line, in regards to this thread, a smaller Barbarossa can also accommodate a slower and cleaner approach to pacification compared to the historical quick and dirty approach.

OTOH some fluff piece by a victor's paid propagandist not matter how cloaked in phony objectivity, is still a propaganda product.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* In my opinion, one in good conscience could execute ALL Axis officers commanding units of division level and up, and most of regiment commanders, on the OstFront in 1941, for warcrimes.

[Boby]

There was a deliberate plan to starve Soviet population, in primis POWs, then city dwellers. The only thing that was not really planned in detail was how much should die, because, in typical nazi fashion, a lot was left to local initiatives of zealous subordinates. Even in the Heer, everybody from Halder down to the common Landser was fully aware that the Soviet population was to be spoiled of everything and left to starve by themselves. Luckily for the occupied regions, the Germans lacked sufficient forces to impose their draconian dreams of ethnic cleansing and mass starvation, so millions found a way to stay alive, through black market, bartering and any other form of compromise that could work for the purpose.
If the Germans were not able to actually killing 30 million (they came pretty close, nevertheless, if we put in the calculation also the military losses) it was not for a lack of motivation but only because they had not enough resources.

There was no such plan. Stop repeating nonsense claims.