Were all Soviet POWs used as workers? If not, then they can recruit from them without reducing the labour pool. Also the creation of national governments in the Soviet territory occupied by the germans, or of the ROA could increase the desertion of Soviet soldiers in order to join the ROA or the armies of those states.maltesefalcon wrote: ↑24 Sep 2020 21:14I don't want to suck all the oxygen out of this thread, but am still puzzled at the logic of the proposal as written.
By 1943, the Axis was heavily outnumbered already by the Soviets. So any potential source of manpower would have been greatly accepted. I totally get that it is better to have Vlasov's men than not. But this must be balanced with the reality that scouring occupied nations for troops, would correspondingly reduce the labour pool for crops and factories.
And said troops still needed to be equipped. Germany had to delay Zitadelle from May to July; to build up their own tank forces, after the debacle at Stalingrad. Where would this extra equipment and vehicles come from, to support x number of new divisions? And if there already was an extra supply on hand, why not offer it to extant forces of Hungary, Romania and Finland?
As for motivation, for the Vlasov force and the occupied nations, it's a no-brainer. They were fighting for their very survival. But I'm struggling a bit with the motivation on the German side. They could lose a million men in the next phase but would simply walk away and return home, if and when Soviet Russia surrendered. (Or stopped fighting at least.) And if Communism falls does that guarantee the next Russian regime will not simply carry on where they left off and forge a capitalist, but Russian dominated empire in Eastern Europe?
As for the equipment, I confess my ignorance on the subject, that is why I asked about it in the first post. I do not know if the germans had as severe a problem with the war production or war materiel as with manpower. But would it have been very difficult to produce, for example, more rifles instead of the V1 or V2?
Regarding the motivation on the german side I can say more. First of all, they have no other option, it is either that or unconditional surrender. Moreover, the new government do not want (as Hitler wanted) to annex and colonize all Soviet territory up to the Urals, only to keep the 1914 borders plus Austria with South Tyrol and the Sudetenland. So it would not be a sacrifice to create those states or promote the ROA. And also, many of the germans who favored and promoted Vlasov and the ROA were linked with the people which would have formed the new government, I am thinking about Stauffenberg, Tresckow or ambassador Schulemburg.
P. S. Sorry for my english, it is not my native language.