During world war 2, could the Germans have incited civil unrest

They could, but then they would have to treat Ukrainians and other minorities like humans, which would go against the whole Nazi ideology.

>>1929653
>>1929634
they actually did that with the non-slav population
crimean tatars got genocided for it after the war

>>1929634
"Ukrainians" splits to 6 parts, with different relations with Russians and Poles. Germans united Poland and bad 2 groups of (west) Ukrainians, tryed to organize independent state for 2 other groups (central and east).
There wasnt any reasons to unrest in german territory, and it was impossible to do in soviet.

>>1930323
So i guess they didn't let Ukrainians burn Poles in catholic churches, and Croats burn Serbs in orthodox churches?

>>1930903
Germans werent inspire such events. Most of It happened because of luck of local German troops, other was consequence of German inactivity to avoid fights with native agressive tribes.

Germans should had promised ukrainians, estonians, latvians, lithuanians and white russians their own sovereign states or atleast autonomous areas. That way those nations would had fought with germans, not against them like most of russians did.

>>1930903
Not just Poles. Ukrainians participated in mass crimes in Belarus.
Traitors.

>>1931036
>white russians
Belarus or Russian anti communists?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army

>>1929634
During the time of the Russian empire, there was a small Ukrainian intellectual bourgeoisie (for lack of a better term - most of my reading has been done in studies of the history of the USSR so the vocabulary has infected me) that wanted independence. They were the nationalist core of most late 19th-century nations that had lived under empires for most of their existence - fairly ineffective, idealistic, and blind to the fact that they were the local elites
The Tsar (Emperor, to give them their real title) was beloved among the people as a folk hero. Rulers, especially monarchs, tend to be. Especially after the abolition of serfdom, the Tsar was seen as father and protector against local landowners. He would check their power and make sure that the peasants were treated fairly. Getting rid of him was not a popular move
The territory of modern Ukraine is incredibly fertile and as such the peasants got fairly rich on their farms. This'll be important later.
After the revolution, the local elites tried to create an independent Ukraine during the chaos of the Civil War. Nestor Makhno and all that. Once the Bolsheviks came in, they established the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and, for the first few years, gave the territory far more autonomy than it had had previously. The language used officially and a lot of the nationalists were happy
Then came Stalin, who was not a fan of rich peasants or the national minorities of the Soviet Union, and the collectivization of agriculture, which was resisted fiercely. A couple of artificially-worsened famines later, and the rich peasantry of western Ukraine was mostly dead.
In come the Nazis, who say that they want to kick the shit out of the Soviets. Naturaly, a lot of Ukrainians said that they thought this sounded rad and helped them out. Then they realized that the Nazis were a bunch of shitbags and started killing them too. Most of them ended up dying
To answer the question, they kind of did what you said

>>1931036
Funny thing is, that's exactly how the Bolsheviks won over national minorities during the civil war of 1917-22.

>>1931036
But most Balts did fight for the Germans, and were given vague promises of a place in the New Europe.

Promises that became more concrete as the war effort demanded more manpower and became gradually more hopeless.

File: 1477134295886.jpg (90KB, 835x1225px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 835x1225px

>>1931049
Russian anti-communists.

Think how many russians would had joined axis side if promised independence, considering how much joined RLA even when many knew what was going to happen to russians after germans victory.