urbanoid

Automation and AI, I guess. Plus obviously political side of it, if we have to change the economic model somewhat, too bad. I don't care about 'number going up' nearly as much as I care about having a nice homogenous country.

Theoretical 6 million, practical 3 million as it turned out. Also in practice the numbers of fighter aircraft used during the operation was roughly equal. I've also seen higher numbers for FTs, from 500+ to around 1000, from what I understand they were largely equipped with MGs by then.

Comparison is about more than the numbers alone. Few of the French tanks were new and ever fewer were modern. Same with their aircraft. Significant part of their artillery didn't even have sights. Same with fighter aircraft, very few modern ones even in 1940, let alone 1939. Slow, grinding offensive (with implied heavy losses) would likely be something unacceptable for the French anyway. They built the Maginot Line (sucking up substantial part of their budget) for a reason and their doctrine was planned accordingly. I'd say chances of making the German offensive bog down in 1940 were far better than for a successful Franco-British offensive at any point.

There you are, before the Fall Gelb the units have been concentrated as they should have been for the offensive, with far less manning the Siegfried Line/in reserve than during the invasion of Poland, as invading France was correctly seen as a lot more difficult task. Yet in 1939 there were over 40 divisions there, virtually no chance for allied breakthrough. So it looks like the only window of opportunity existed when... Germany was in positions to invade themselves. Actually makes sense, that's when the army is most vulnerable, concentrated in narrow corridors, easy to cut off by the invading enemy, with gigantic stocks of materiel 'right on the border' etc. Like the Red Army in June 1941.

Well, in 1935 they spent more on their military than UK, France and Poland combined, most likely it was the same in following years. I think it's underappreciated what kind of a giant Germany was in 1939, more population than France and Poland combined, with several years of gigantic military investments behind them, with their military not burdened by ridiculous amounts of 'vintage' weapons (like e.g. the French). I'd say the French wouldn't have done well offensively against Germany in 1938 either. 1936 maybe.

Legal immigration is in a sense worse than the illegal one. Legal immigrants have more... legal protections, it's harder to throw them out.

The allies had no realistic chance of taking the Ruhr/breaching the Siegfried Line in 1939/40. Despite the invasion of Poland, forces left in the West were quite substantial* and the Siegfried Line was no joke. It was not a joke even in 1944 with the US doing the heavy lifting. It might have been the second most powerful line of fortifications in the world after the Maginot Line. The French tried - they got bogged down after losing two thousand soldiers. *42 divisions, including 12 of the 'first rate' ones, a dozen or so divisions a bit further in reserve + aforementioned Siegfried Line + 600 or so fighter aircraft - that's... more than the French have mobilized by mid-September

Already explained too, no need to peddle Russian/Western 'dissident' retard disinfo anymore.

Congratulations, you fell for it. It was a tissue.

We're soooo back!

In that case both sides should be receiving a steady supply of nuclear weapons to deal with that billion.

So it still would be black-on-black cannibalism? n shiet

Saar Wars World War Poo

Now let's slow down for a bit...

Not everyone could become citizen though. 1790 Naturalization Act: