How is switzerland able to stay neutral in every war?

[jtusa]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

2) Military service and gun ownership are compulsory, the citizens are famously patriotic, and the country is very well-defended. I wager any country on earth would have an extremely difficult time if it tried to capture Switzerland short of using nuclear weapons.

meh, stop believing in that mythic invincible defence crud. conventional bombing would be enough to decimate a small country of 7million, let alone nuclear weapons.

You can bomb a mountain all you want but you aren't going to hurt the people inside it. When you're dug-in inside solid rock not much can get to you. The best of the best of today's "bunker buster" bombs will only penetrate so far, and nobody had anything like that back then. They're bombs would have done surface damage only. On top of that, you can only bomb what you can see.

Armor and vehicles are out of the question. You can't drive up a mountain and you can't drive over a river/lake that just had it's bridge demolished. I'm sure any mountain passes would've been blocked, either by some obstruction or previously zeroed in artillery.

That leaves infantry. Individual guys trying to climb a mountain and fight at the same time. Even if you get a foothold halfway up the mountain you still have to stay supplied while the defenders are warm and supplied inside their bunkers taking shots at you(and the Swiss are very good marksman as has been explained in this thread alread).

One of the most important things in strategy/tactics is the high ground. If you control the high ground, you control the battlefield.

I'm not going to say it would be impossible, but it would near suicide to try. The only feasible option would be to lay siege, but depending on how much supplies they actually do have stocked up, that could take years and years.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ndee
He surely WOULD have had a problem. And ahm.... I don't know if I understand you right but do you think we speak German cuz of Nazi Germany?

Hitler invented German, didn't you know that? Everyone in Germany spoke Swahili before he came along 😛

Originally posted by: jtusa4
You can bomb a mountain all you want but you aren't going to hurt the people inside it. When you're dug-in inside solid rock not much can get to you. The best of the best of today's "bunker buster" bombs will only penetrate so far, and nobody had anything like that back then. They're bombs would have done surface damage only. On top of that, you can only bomb what you can see.

Armor and vehicles are out of the question. You can't drive up a mountain and you can't drive over a river/lake that just had it's bridge demolished. I'm sure any mountain passes would've been blocked, either by some obstruction or previously zeroed in artillery.

That leaves infantry. Individual guys trying to climb a mountain and fight at the same time. Even if you get a foothold halfway up the mountain you still have to stay supplied while the defenders are warm and supplied inside their bunkers taking shots at you(and the Swiss are very good marksman as has been explained in this thread alread).

thank you; I was just about to post that...

 

[0roo0roo]

i wouldn't thank him so quickly. look, a small country with small population has no staying power, esp when you have to mobilize most of your population to fill the ranks. you can only do taht for so long before you start to rapidly degenerate. sure they can put up a fight for a little while, but they will run out of resources and places to hide if the enemy fights a true all out war.

you can hide in the mt's all you want, but your cities and all your resources which obviously can't hide from the massive bombing in the mt's will be devastated, along with most of your population, and you will certainly be encircled..and you really think 7 million(slightly less back then) would be able to hide together and survive in the mt's for long? in the end you will be starved out. you will have won nothing. you will either sue for peace or die and let the german race win their rightful "breathing room".

 

[Random Variable]

Hitler referred to Switzerland as the "a$$hole of Europe." Maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: djheater
Do swiss army rifles have corkscrews?

No, only russian army rifles have corkscrews.
(if I think better, everything in russian army has corkscrews) 😉

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: jagecHuh, all this stuff is pretty interesting and I never really knew it about Switzerland...

but when the men are doing their compulsory military service...who do they fight?😕

It seems like they have GREAT defensive capabilities, for no good reason.

No good reason? Do you know how much $$ is there? You mentioned the Nazi gold, and then there is of course self-preservation. All are good reasons for strong defense, especially considering the history of Europe.

It was strong enough to keep Nazi Germany out when few others did, that'd be good enough justification alone...

If you think Hitler would have trouble taking them over you're crazy. The Swiss were scared of the Nazi's which was why they offered to be their personal "banker". If the Allied forces had not succeeded, don't think for a second that everyone in Switzerland wouldn't be talking German today.

Just to make it clear, you realize that German is the primary Swiss language, right?

:thumbsup:

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

2) Military service and gun ownership are compulsory, the citizens are famously patriotic, and the country is very well-defended. I wager any country on earth would have an extremely difficult time if it tried to capture Switzerland short of using nuclear weapons.

meh, stop believing in that mythic invincible defence crud. conventional bombing would be enough to decimate a small country of 7million, let alone nuclear weapons.

The bombers usefull in attack role were Stukas. However, high mountains hidden in the clouds could prove a big surprise. Also, dive bombing attacks need alot of space on "exit pass" - so someone on the side of a mountain was quite well protected against dive bombing.
You should not compare those times' aviation with what exists now.

Carpet bombing against cities would have been just as effective as in other cases - just that anti-aircraft artillery would have much higher places as bases, so being closer to planes, and more effective.
And destroying everything in a country does nothing against the will to resist (I am sorry for them, but american soldiers in Iraq know that)

 

[0roo0roo]

no. americans soldiers do not know "that". we aren't fighting total war where you can simply flatten cities to kill some insurgents. and don't even bring up vietnam which was essentially a civil war. we are talking full out war, the current mentality of sparing every civilian at every cost did not apply back then, let alone with the nazis. hiding in the mountains would do nothing. your fancy defence guns in the mts would eventually run down after endless raids, bombings ...and well we're talking ww2. and being that swiss were neutral, this scenario would happen after the fall of the allies. mainly the fall of britain and russia if that were to happen. only then would swiss be attacked, past 44 obviously, and while germans only had upscaled junkers, they had plenty of heavy bomber prototypes. it was only a matter of time before they could pull off heavy bombing, they already had jet fighters at the end, they were nothing if not innovative.

just put it this way, a small surrounded country does not have the luxury of time. u will die, how quickly or slowly the snake squeezes you doesnt matter, its just that simple. you are in your little fishbowl defending it, with no way of lashing back or changing your situation. you are doomed.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

2) Military service and gun ownership are compulsory, the citizens are famously patriotic, and the country is very well-defended. I wager any country on earth would have an extremely difficult time if it tried to capture Switzerland short of using nuclear weapons.

meh, stop believing in that mythic invincible defence crud. conventional bombing would be enough to decimate a small country of 7million, let alone nuclear weapons.

Yeah, we saw that how "bombing" a country makes it easy to take it over. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for example.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: ndee

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

2) Military service and gun ownership are compulsory, the citizens are famously patriotic, and the country is very well-defended. I wager any country on earth would have an extremely difficult time if it tried to capture Switzerland short of using nuclear weapons.

meh, stop believing in that mythic invincible defence crud. conventional bombing would be enough to decimate a small country of 7million, let alone nuclear weapons.

Yeah, we saw that how "bombing" a country makes it easy to take it over. Take Iraq and Afghanistan for example.

i like how you apply modern day war mentality with its high minded abhorence of civilian death and avoidance of numerous other very effective but immoral or cruel tactics to past wars😛

taking a country dead or alive for use as either slaves or colonization is much easier then trying to "liberate" the population. entirely different.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i wouldn't thank him so quickly. look, a small country with small population has no staying power, esp when you have to mobilize most of your population to fill the ranks. you can only do taht for so long before you start to rapidly degenerate. sure they can put up a fight for a little while, but they will run out of resources and places to hide if the enemy fights a true all out war.

you can hide in the mt's all you want, but your cities and all your resources which obviously can't hide from the massive bombing in the mt's will be devastated, along with most of your population, and you will certainly be encircled..and you really think 7 million(slightly less back then) would be able to hide together and survive in the mt's for long? in the end you will be starved out. you will have won nothing. you will either sue for peace or die and let the german race win their rightful "breathing room".

That's what the Germans were missing in WWII, that's why they couldn't fight a 2 front-war. I'm sure there are tons of food also in the mountains, maybe just bread and other basic foods.

 

[0roo0roo]

yes its fortunate hitler took his dumbass march into the frosty russian wastelands.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: welst10
The question is how can they stay neutral in Bush's "war on terror", when he declares "you're either with us or against us"?

Cuz they're sissies. 😛

They sit around and make watches and chocolate .... and they're darn good at both.

don't forget swiss cheese!

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

2) Military service and gun ownership are compulsory, the citizens are famously patriotic, and the country is very well-defended. I wager any country on earth would have an extremely difficult time if it tried to capture Switzerland short of using nuclear weapons.

meh, stop believing in that mythic invincible defence crud. conventional bombing would be enough to decimate a small country of 7million, let alone nuclear weapons.

You can bomb a mountain all you want but you aren't going to hurt the people inside it. When you're dug-in inside solid rock not much can get to you. The best of the best of today's "bunker buster" bombs will only penetrate so far, and nobody had anything like that back then. They're bombs would have done surface damage only. On top of that, you can only bomb what you can see.

Armor and vehicles are out of the question. You can't drive up a mountain and you can't drive over a river/lake that just had it's bridge demolished. I'm sure any mountain passes would've been blocked, either by some obstruction or previously zeroed in artillery.

That leaves infantry. Individual guys trying to climb a mountain and fight at the same time. Even if you get a foothold halfway up the mountain you still have to stay supplied while the defenders are warm and supplied inside their bunkers taking shots at you(and the Swiss are very good marksman as has been explained in this thread alread).

One of the most important things in strategy/tactics is the high ground. If you control the high ground, you control the battlefield.

I'm not going to say it would be impossible, but it would near suicide to try. The only feasible option would be to lay siege, but depending on how much supplies they actually do have stocked up, that could take years and years.

A bit off topic (or maybe that was the idea of the ATOT?) - but wasn't Wilhelm Tell an swiss?

 

[Calin]

You are right, 0roo0roo
However, I was talking about carpet bombing examples only in the second world war. There were enough examples - London, Hanover, just to name a couple.
And again, I choose my words wrongly. It was not destroying everything alive in a country, just any form of organized defence (or any army), which has happened. The Iraq fighting is against some civilians that took up arms, and maybe in Switzerland it would have been the same.

 

[Phoenix86]

It's not that they were impenetrable, it just wasn't worth it. That's an awesome defense. "You can take us, but do you REALLY want to?"

ndee, That's hardly a fair comparison, Iraq and Afganistan are not total war scenarios. In WWII population centers and factories were targeted, not avoided.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

2) Military service and gun ownership are compulsory, the citizens are famously patriotic, and the country is very well-defended. I wager any country on earth would have an extremely difficult time if it tried to capture Switzerland short of using nuclear weapons.

meh, stop believing in that mythic invincible defence crud. conventional bombing would be enough to decimate a small country of 7million, let alone nuclear weapons.

You can bomb a mountain all you want but you aren't going to hurt the people inside it. When you're dug-in inside solid rock not much can get to you. The best of the best of today's "bunker buster" bombs will only penetrate so far, and nobody had anything like that back then. They're bombs would have done surface damage only. On top of that, you can only bomb what you can see.

Armor and vehicles are out of the question. You can't drive up a mountain and you can't drive over a river/lake that just had it's bridge demolished. I'm sure any mountain passes would've been blocked, either by some obstruction or previously zeroed in artillery.

That leaves infantry. Individual guys trying to climb a mountain and fight at the same time. Even if you get a foothold halfway up the mountain you still have to stay supplied while the defenders are warm and supplied inside their bunkers taking shots at you(and the Swiss are very good marksman as has been explained in this thread alread).

One of the most important things in strategy/tactics is the high ground. If you control the high ground, you control the battlefield.

I'm not going to say it would be impossible, but it would near suicide to try. The only feasible option would be to lay siege, but depending on how much supplies they actually do have stocked up, that could take years and years.

A bit off topic (or maybe that was the idea of the ATOT?) - but wasn't Wilhelm Tell an swiss?

Yep, he's the "national person" of Switzerland.

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: welst10
The question is how can they stay neutral in Bush's "war on terror", when he declares "you're either with us or against us"?

every country's politicians have their money tucked away in the Swiss banks... you think anyone wants to bomb his own bank??? they don't need an army here. thry have banks....😉

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: jagecHuh, all this stuff is pretty interesting and I never really knew it about Switzerland...

but when the men are doing their compulsory military service...who do they fight?😕

It seems like they have GREAT defensive capabilities, for no good reason.

No good reason? Do you know how much $$ is there? You mentioned the Nazi gold, and then there is of course self-preservation. All are good reasons for strong defense, especially considering the history of Europe.

It was strong enough to keep Nazi Germany out when few others did, that'd be good enough justification alone...

If you think Hitler would have trouble taking them over you're crazy. The Swiss were scared of the Nazi's which was why they offered to be their personal "banker". If the Allied forces had not succeeded, don't think for a second that everyone in Switzerland wouldn't be talking German today.

sorry to rain on you but most people in Switzerland DO speak German... LOL

 

They have an armed and trained population.

 

[squirrel dog]

O.J. liked the knife .