Search results

I know next to nothing about the specifics of those, but let's apply some general wisdom: The more complicated you make something, the more there is that can go wrong.

First it would have to find them. And bring them all.

"The Zebra has never been tamed for use by man" Reichtangle: "Challenge accepted!"

More importantly, they were wars on the other side of the planet, that the USA could decide to give up on, and simply pack up and leave. That is not at all equivalent to losing a war with a peer power next door, who then demands territorial concessions as a condition of peace.

The point is, they were going for Paris. Attacking from the south via Switzerland would not make sense at all. It's pretty much in the category if "if they could have successfully done that, they would not have needed to."

Also, quite apart from the resistance the Swiss would have put up, what would have been the point? The goal of the Schlieffen Plan wasn't just to bypass the Maginot Line, it was to quickly defeat France by taking Paris. Invading from the north was rather important for that.

The 1939 one doesn't show any dip in male population from WWI - what it does seem to show is that from 1914 to 1919, the Germans were having far fewer children. Not really seeing any big loss in the 1950 one from WWII - despite the Germans having lost 11 million men in the war.