What if the 20th of July 1944 Hitler has been "terminated"

[PanzerJaeger]

So, against the Russians, the 262 would have piled up quite a few kills -- almost certainly wiping the IL-4s and TB-3s from the sky -- but would have had a lot more trouble "low and slow" against the Russian tacair folks.

I largely agree with your specific criticisms of the 262, however, many of them, such as engine reliability and armament, had already been improved or corrected in later variants of the plane that did not see action. I also think you give the IL-2's, and Russian fighters, too much credit. Sturmoviks were very vulnerable to fighters, so I'm not sure how a faster, more advanced fighter would fare worse; and Russian fighters and pilots were on average worse than their Allied equivalents. 262s put down P-51s with relative ease, so I don't think it would have too much trouble with Russian fighters. Yes, much of their success can be attributed to pilot skill, as with every fighter, but even with the poor turning radius, the plane was very capable - especially when new tactics were developed to maximize it's strengths and minimize its limitations. Further design enhancements would have only helped.

As for the rest, there is a narrative indeed. Like you, my interest is in dispelling myths based in ancient contemporary propaganda.

Far from military overachievement, Nazi Germany deserves the title of 'worst military performance in modern history'.

I agree that the conventional wisdom surrounding WW2 and what actually happened are often not even close to matching up. However, in correcting the historical record, one should be mindful of not creating new myths.

I also agree with the limited economic point you made. Had Germany transitioned to a total war economy in 1939 instead of 1943, her production of armaments would have been far greater. (Not anywhere close to Allied production, but higher.) You seem to attribute that failure to base stupidity of Nazi leadership and a spoiled German populace. I think a more accurate analysis would reveal that the German plan for war was based on quick victories, and that that strategy was largely supported by results, except for the one fundamental miscalculation I discussed earlier (Russia). Once it was determined that the war would be prolonged, Germany responded accordingly. Further, Russia's early adoption of a total war type economy wasn't some brilliant decision that they chose correctly and the Germans didn't, they simply had no choice. Now, if one wants to find support for the notion that Germany was terrible in WW2, one could retroactively assert that Germany should have known that it could not knock out Russia during Barbarossa. However, that ignores all the information Germany had available and how close that it came to victory. I believe Hitler told Mannerheim that if he knew the Soviets could produce so many tanks, he never would have invaded. Again, every nation made such miscalcutlations during the war.



However, to conflate that economic point with German military performance is misguided at best and dubious at worst. The facts you use to support your assertion are simply incorrect.

I'd rather say that Germany could pick off a handful of smaller opponents one by one,

You seem to completely ignore your own nation's effort. The battle for France can hardly be described as Germany picking off a handful of smaller opponents. French and British forces were not outnumbered, and even enjoyed vast numerical superiority in artillery and tanks, many of which were technically superior to Germany's. Further, it was not a slow attritional battle where Germany's economy out produced France and Britain, but a quick campaign where military superiority won the day.

and the very first time it took on somebody roughly its own size it suffered devastating defeat in a period measured not in years, but months

I can only assume you are referring to Russia, although your assertion that it was roughly the same size really threw me off. 35,400,000 men served in the Red Army during WW2, comprising roughly 500 divisions. Germany committed 3,200,000 troops to Barbarossa and the number of German troops serving on the Eastern Front never grew above that number. Their divisional strength never grew beyond 150. Further, Russia far out produced Germany in every quantifiable armaments measure, not to mention the benefits Russia inherited from the actual geographic size of the country. At the time of our scenario - around Bagration in '44 - Germany had 2.5 million troops in the East, while Russia had 11 million - in addition to huge numerical superiorities in artillery, tanks, and airplanes. You seem to be trying to substitute industrial capacity with all other measures of size, which besides being fundamentally flawed, has little to do with the combat performance of comparative militaries.

This highlights one of the flaws in your estimation of German production capacity. Manpower, in itself, is a critical production constraint. Let's say Germany pulled off your economic miracle and produced 106, 334 brand new, shiny Panther tanks - exactly the number of tanks the Soviet Union produced throughout the war. Where are the 531, 670 crew going to come from to operate them, to say nothing of the maintenance and support personnel and or the people needed to train the crews? I refer you to the tens of thousands of brand new fighters the Luftwaffe had in storage when the war ended, as there were no pilots to fly them.

one considers that Germany was supported by half of Europe,

More cleverly deceptive language. Would you care to discuss the number of German allied troops committed to Russia and their effectiveness?

Soviet Union was a second world newly industrialising agragrian country run by a madman who had killed his officer corps, had decimated its restless population with mass starvation the decade before, and had let himself be taken by complete surprise.

He had also kept the population's living standards at such a base level that his country could focus nearly 95% of its industrial capacity towards military production without destroying its economy. Your spoiled Germans don't represent the full picture.


Overall, you could make the point that Germany should not have produced 15 million spools of wallpaper in 1945, and I would agree with you. However, you cannot then transfer that questionable economic performance onto the performance of the German military. The German forces are widely regarded as the best of the war, and various statistical analyses support those findings.

I'll go with Anthony Evans from World War II : An Illustrated Miscellany who has the most accurate and concise description of the Germans during WW2 I've read:

The German soldier was very professional and well trained, aggressive in attack and stubborn in defense. He was always adaptable, particularly in the later years when shortages of equipment were being felt.

I feel like you're trying to fight the war all over again, to deny the Germans even the recognition of being effective at much of anything at all. While your intentions are admirable, I think such statements do a disservice to history. It begs the question: If the German's were so stupid, spoiled, lazy, and militarily ineffective, what the hell was wrong with the Allies!?