What if hitler is more pragmatic concerning

If the Germans had been more pragmatic (As unlikely as that is just go with it), including Hitler himself, how successful could a native recruitment program have been among the Soviet population including POWs and Red Army soldiers still fighting on Stalin’s side beginning in 1941?

If they created a propaganda campaign for the formation of a Russian Liberation Army (leaflet airdrops, fliers, etc) that they intended on actually creating, how many people would have joined? How many Soviet POWs would have chosen to fight against the government that had oppressed them and their families for so long rather than work as a laborer?

Could it have aided the Germans to a significant degree? Could it even have led to an internal revolution and eventual overthrow of Stalin and his government?

Links concerning collaboration among Soviet citizens with German forces:

Kaminski Brigade - Wikipedia.
Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts - Wikipedia
Collaboration with the Axis powers - Wikipedia
Schutzmannschaft - Wikipedia

There’s no certain way of knowing, but I think the likelihood is fairly high. Stalin was NOT particularly beloved, and it is said in many histories of the war that, initially, the Russian (well, Ukrainian) people welcomes the liberating German army.

If they had acted like liberators, they might well have been able to get the Russians to oust Stalin. They could have avoided needing to conquer the rest of Russia (just as, in 1940, they didn’t bother conquering the rest of France.)

Russia didn’t rule the USSR though and Stalin wasn’t Russian but I agree that the Ukrainian s would have helped drive the Soviets out. Some eight million died there in the thirties.

This isn’t a theoretical, it actually happened, albeit behind Hitler’s back and with motivations far less noble than former Soviet POWs wanting to fight against the evils of communism. They either worked for the German Army or they starved to death; of 5.7 million Soviet POWs taken by the Germans 3.3 million died in captivity, they were the second largest group of victims of the holocaust:

Bolding mine; there were already a million of them historically. If their combat value was often dubious they did at least free up German troops for employment elsewhere. At least one battalion per German infantry division serving in France at the time of the invasion of Normandy was an Ostbattalion, for example. Even the propaganda campaign for the Russian Liberation Army happened, with fliers, leaflet airdrops, etc.

All of this aided the Germans greatly; just as employing millions of slave laborers in their workforce did. Any idea of an internal revolution or overthrow of Stalin isn’t any more than a pipe dream under the best of circumstances though; he had an absolute iron grip on control of the government.

There is a good article at feldgrau on it here; some bits from it:

Nitpick : “the Holocaust” doesn’t refer to victims of nazism and the war in general.

It’s debatable. The Nazis murdered ~11 million people out of racial policy; if the term “the Holocaust” refers only to the ~6 million Jews murdered or to all 11 million depends who you ask. Wiki:

In any event, the 3.3 million Soviet POWs were deliberately killed by the Germans as part of Nazi racial policy; they weren’t simply victims of the war in general. The first 600 victims murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz were in fact Soviet POWs.

The with this type of question is that the answer is “then they wouldn’t be Nazis.” It’d be like asking how the Civil War would have turned out of the South freed and armed all their slaves at the beginning.

The Nazis allowed non-Germans to fight alongside them as allies, particularly in north Africa.

So a “NAZI’S NAZI’S NAZI’S LET’S SHUT OFF OUR BRAINS” reply is a bit disingenuous.

If the Germans had capitalized on their liberator ethos among some people (particularly the Ukrainians, as mentioned), they would have done themselves a world of good, especially during their retreat from Barbarossa.

Hitler, however, was far too impatient to see the long-game in it all.

More a case of his having a different long game. Liberating Slavs, even in order to hasten the defeat of the Soviet regime, wouldn’t have featured in that, since - in his worldview - they would then still have to be conquered anyway. Territory, slave labour and ultimate annihilation was the objective. Why have two successive wars to accomplish what he thought he could achieve in one?