|
|
|
|
#1
12-24-2002, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
WW1 trenches near Switserland and the sea?
Dear forum members,
My question is about the edges of the trench lines in WW1. I understand that the purpose of a long trench line is that an army cannot be passed from the side and then be attacked from the back. So what did the trench lines at the sea and in Switserland look like? Did they go all the way to the beach in the west? And even more intruigingly, what happened near the Swiss border? Did the trenches just stop at the Swiss border posts? And was there never a temptation for any of the armies to send a couple of soldiers through Switserland to attack the enemy from the back? Thanks, Steven 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#3
12-25-2002, 05:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This site on WWI history has it that the trench lines stetched 400 miles, from Switzerland to the North Sea, by the end of the war, with "no way round". I'm not sure where to find details as to what the trenches looked like at either end from online sources tonight, but there are books available on the topic, I'm sure.
|
|
#4
12-25-2002, 05:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
>> I understand that the purpose of a long trench line is that an army cannot be passed from the side and then be attacked from the back
I do not think this is really correct. A trench protects the guys inside it from enemy fire. In any situation you want to avoid being surrounded by the enemy but a trench is not especifically built for this. And any fortification which is a long line will have an end and the fact that it is the sea or something else matters little. I know it's not a good answer but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe your premise is flawed.
|
|
#5
12-25-2002, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In any event, I've wondered about this question myself. I'm kinda speculating, but part of it might be that northern Switzerland was so mountainous that it would be difficult to send many men through without being stopped by the other side. One can imagine that the trenches would be extended a bit parallel to the Swiss border to prevent such incursions, anyway. Similarly, on the beach, one could set up mines, guns, etc. to prevent the other side from circumventing your trenches. These defenses could be extended a bit along the beach as well. Again, I'm just speculating.
|
|
#6
12-25-2002, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
trench warfare
one of the reasons for trenches being dug with protected ends was to prevent what is known as an "enfilade".
That is a maneuver which places an enemy fire capability at the open end of a trench with the capability to fire straight in to the trench with no possibulity of return fire. That is also the reason why long trenches were not straight-----to prevent massive losses in case an enfilade occured. A long straight trench was a turkey shoot for a machine gun.
|
|
#7
12-25-2002, 12:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As I usnderstand it, it would have been impossible to walk from Switzerland to the sea below ground. To begin with, it was impossible to dig in some swampy areas (those areas were covered by above-ground fortifications.
The lines were never built as an intergrated system and so where one unit joined another the linkage was haphazard at best. There were gaps in the system (but not in the fire provided by the fortifications). As for what happened at the seashore and the Swiss frontier, I dunno, you would think there must be at least one neato photograph somewhere of it.
__________________
800-237-5055 Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America) Never any fee Do you know a child in need?
|
|
#8
12-25-2002, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I asked this same question on my first post to the board a couple of years ago. From what I can remember from the answers is that at the Southern end the Swiss army had a strong presence on their border and would not allow any incursions into Switzerland . This was not flat land here but the foot-hills of the Vosges Mountains and so a trench system was not viable anyway , just fortified positions and outposts. At the northen end the wire streached out to sea and both sides had gun boats to prevent incursions.
|
|
#9
12-25-2002, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks Rayne Man, and others.
Your thoughts have cleared a lot up. Especially about how sometimes digging a trench just wasn't possible, and about how things were at the northern end. Only I'm not too sure about the presence of an army at the Swiss border. I thought the Swiss never had an army? Or perhaps they had then, but don't have one now.
|
|
#10
12-25-2002, 03:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Only I'm not too sure about the presence of an army at the Swiss border. I thought the Swiss never had an army? Or perhaps they had then, but don't have one now."
The Swiss are fairly highly militarized. I believe that all able-bodied male Swiss citizens must go initial military training and some period of service and that they then train on a regular basis until they are old. I think they keep at least some of their weapons at home. And some proportion of private single-family residences (1 of 3?) have underground shelters with blast proof doors and stores of food and water. Arnold?
|
|
#11
12-25-2002, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a related note, I've seen pictures of the sea end of the Great Wall of China. At land's end there's a cause way that extends several hundred feet into the sea. The wall is extended out on it and there's a large tower at the end. So any Mongols trying to outflank the wall would have to swim hundreds of feet to get around. I believe the site is a major tourist attraction in China.
|
|
#12
12-26-2002, 06:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Swiss do not like war, they are totally against war(they havent had one for hundreds of years) and will not permit nor tolerate other armies from entering or using their land or airspace. The Swiss people are probably the most heavily armed citizens in the world, even more and better armed than the Americans or Isralies and are fully prepared to successfully defend themselves against any country, and no one in Switzerland has the power to surrender, so if you were to fight Switzerland, you would have to kill them all. It is suicide for any army to enter Switzerland.
|
|
#13
12-26-2002, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have heard it said that even today the Swiss have mined their most important tunnels and bridges so that , in the the event of an invasion, they can detonate these and impede the enemy forces. In WW2 the Swiss shot down several Allied and Axis planes which had strayed into their territory .
|
|
#14
12-26-2002, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I think one reason Switzerland has been safe from European wars because it is valuable as a listening post and neutral talking ground. Subjects arise that need talking about on the part of the opposing sides, even during a hot war. For example, the status of nationals who were trapped in the enemy country by the onset of the war.
|
|
#16
12-26-2002, 08:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"Target Switzerland" by Stephen P. Halbrook and "Total Resistance" by Major H. Von Dach They both document the absolute total resistance of all Swiss citizens and the total lack of any surrendering authority. During world war 2, all Swiss were reminded over and over again, that surrender is not an option, and if any Swiss citizen was told of a surrender, to not believe it. No Swiss general, nor the president of Switzerland has the power to surrender. Any and every invading army, knows they will have to fight and be shot at until the very last Swiss citizen is dead. The Swiss defense and reliance upon its militia, which has worked for over 400 years, depends on a "no surrender" policy.
|
|
#17
12-26-2002, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Discovery channel has shown this, as well as the Swiss underground fortifications. Not only "important" bridges and tunnels are mined, but all passes and all bridges and all tunnels will be blown up. Anyone who invades Switzerland, not only has all of its citizens shooting at them, but Switzerland becomes worthless to the invaders since the entire country becomes impassable. Switzerland will no longer become strategically important if invaded, just a bunch of mountains full of armed citizens who can shoot straight, and who will never stop shooting at you until they are dead, or you are dead. The Swiss policy is that the country will become worthless, and you will also be shot at by every Swiss citizen.
|
|
#18
12-28-2002, 08:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#19
12-28-2002, 09:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In the late 80s, the Scottish author William Boyd published a not-bad novel called The New Confessions, in which the main character is a filmmaker with a Rousseau obsession whose life covers much of the 20th century. At one point during the First World War, the character is stationed at the sea-end of the line. I'm fairly sure that I've seen evidence that this has to be explicitly impossible, in that this stretch was never manned by a British unit, though I'm not sure offhand whether Boyd acknowledged this by coming up with a fictional explanation for the discrepency. For what it's worth, as I recall, Boyd's description of the end of the line accords with what lucwarm and Rayne Man suggest.
However, the more direct representation of the sea-end that I've seen is in a reprint of a book whose name I, unfortunately, cannot remember. This was an unofficial postwar (?) volume consisting of a single metre-or-so-long diagram giving a "panorama" of the entire Western Front from an impossibly birds-eye viewpoint. The style was somewhat newspaperish, in that it was meant to be both a map-like representation on one scale and to suggest the local features by drawing these on a much larger one. Having read Boyd, I specifically looked to see what happened at the sea: basically, it had the wire running out to sea and particularly heavy fortifications on both sides beside the beach. The book had been reprinted relatively recently in a cheap edition.
|
|
#20
12-28-2002, 09:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Read the entirety of both above mentioned books for all you want to know about Swiss.
I will not post the entirety of this, but I will post as much as possible, and more than usual, since some people as shown by the previous post, are not able to link to other sites to read information from other sites, nor read the original material. Thus, for those people who cannot read books or link to other sites, here are various excerpts from Stephen P. Halbrook's "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II." and from "Total Resistance" : http://home.earthlink.net/~founders/switzerland.htm "A 1940 Newsweek magazine article characterized Switzerland as the world's oldest and purest democracy where, in three cantons, government was still conducted by a show of hands in public squares at the Landsgemeinden. The militia had no officer higher than a colonel in peacetime. "Even when there is no European war on, every member of this militia army of some 500,000 keeps his gun, ammunition, and equipment at home making the Swiss Government the only one in Europe which trusts such a large proportion of citizens with arms." What this meant to the Nazis was that they would have to conquer Switzerland right down to the last man. And many of these men would be sniping from steep, hidden Alpine positions at German troops with rifles which were accurate at long ranges. There would be no surrender. The April,1944 issue of American Mercury magazine included an intriguing article by Edward Byng entitled "If Switzerland is Invaded." In that event, warned Byng, demolition would begin in seconds "Terrific explosions [would] rend the air all along the Swiss frontiers, as if hundreds of avalanches were thundering down the mountain slopes of the land." All bridges over the Rhine would collapse, and mines would await invaders who tried to cross by rafts or amphibious tanks. The Simplon and the St. Gotthard tunnels would be destroyed. Roads, railways, bridges, power stations and air fields would be blown up. Camouflaged tank traps and electrified barbed-wire fences would stop many panzers and infantry." http://home.earthlink.net/~founders/switzerland.htm http://i2i.org/Publications/IP/Other...witzerland.htm "In World War II, the Swiss had defenses no other country had. When the German Kaiser asked in 1912 what the quarter of a million Swiss militiamen would do if invaded by a half million German soldiers, a Swiss replied: shoot twice and go home. Switzerland also had a decentralized, direct democracy which could not be surrendered to a foreign enemy by a political elite. Some governments surrendered to Hitler without resistance based on the decision of a king or dictator; this was institutionally impossible in Switzerland. If an ordinary Swiss citizen was told that the Federal President--a relatively powerless official--had surrendered the country, the citizen might not even know the president's name, and would have held any "surrender" order in contempt. When Hitler came to power in 1933, the Swiss feared an invasion and began military preparations like no other European nation. On Hitler's 1938 "Anchluss" or annexation of Austria, the Swiss Parliament declared that the Swiss were prepared to defend themselves "to the last drop of their blood." When the Fuehrer attacked Poland in 1939, Swiss General Guisan ordered the citizen army to resist any attack to the last cartridge. After Denmark and Norway fell in 1940, Guisan and the Federal Council gave the order to the populace: Aggressively attack invaders; act on your own initiative; regard any surrender broadcast or announcement as enemy propaganda; resist to the end. This was published as a message to the Swiss and a warning to the Germans; surrender was impossible, even if ordered by the government, for the prior order mandated that any "surrender" be treated as an enemy lie." http://i2i.org/Publications/IP/Other...witzerland.htm "When the Germany army, the Wehrmacht, attacked Belgium and Holland, it feigned preparations for attack through Switzerland. Like actors on a giant movie set, divisions moved toward the Swiss border by day, only to sneak back again by night and repeat the ruse the next day. Both the Swiss and the French were tricked into thinking that concentrations of troops were massing to attack through Switzerland and into France. Swiss border troops nervously awaited an assault each time the clock approached the hour, for the Germans were punctual in lauching attacks on the hour. When France collapsed, detailed Nazi invasion plans with names like "Case Switzerland" and "Operation Tannenbaum" were prepared for the German General Staff. They only awaited the Fuehrer's nod. A fifth of the Swiss people, 850,000 out of the 4.2 million population, was under arms and mobilized. Most men were in the citizens army, and boys and old men with rifles constituted the Home Guard. Many women served in the civil defense and the anti-aircraft defense. http://i2i.org/Publications/IP/Other...witzerland.htm Hitler banned the play William Tell. He called the Swiss "the most despicable and wretched people, mortal enemies of the new Germany"; in the same breath he fumed that all Jews must be expelled from Europe. His plan to annihilate the Jews would have faced a special obstacle in Switzerland, where every Swiss Jew (like every other citizen) had a rifle in his home. " http://i2i.org/Publications/IP/Other...witzerland.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...288286-5187800 http://shop.store.yahoo.com/spytechagency/11628.html http://hallbiographies.com/index.php.../916942/page/1 http://home.earthlink.net/~founders/switzerland.htm "In response to the invasions of small neutral countries, Switzerland issued its "directions concerning the conduct of the soldiers not under arms in event of attack." Intended as a warning to Germany, it was pasted on walls all over the country. It prescribed the reaction against surprise attack and against the fifth column as follows: All soldiers and those with them are to attack with ruthlessness parachutists, airborne infantry and saboteurs. Where no officers and noncommissioned officers are present, each soldier is to act under exertion of all powers of his own initiative. This command for the individual to act on his own initiative was an ancient Swiss tradition which reflected the political and military leadership's staunch confidence in the ordinary man. This command was possible, of course, only in a society where every man had his rifle at home. Under no condition, the order continued, would any surrender be forthcoming, and any pretense of a surrender must be ignored: If by radio, leaflets or other media any information is transmitted doubting the will of the Federal Council or of the Army High Command to resist an attacker, this information must be regarded as lies of enemy propaganda. Our country will resist aggression with all means in its power and to the death. Switzerland, in other words, possessed the most democratic system of national defense in Europe. The Nazis were well aware that invasion meant fighting on every inch of ground (much of it vertical), in every city and village, in every pasture and mountainside, right down to every man with a rifle. There would be no easy surrender made by a ruler, as elsewhere. The Swiss policy of total resistance is further illustrated by the creation of a system of local defense, the Ortswehren. It was based on the dictum that "only a total defense can oppose total war." http://home.earthlink.net/~founders/switzerland.htm
|
|
#21
12-28-2002, 10:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#22
12-28-2002, 10:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
from Dave Kopel:
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/swiss_militia.htm "Hitler swallowed nation after nation where cowardly ruling elites surrendered the country to the Nazis either before the shooting began, or a few weeks afterward. But such a surrender would have been impossible in Switzerland. "The Swiss governmental system was decentralized, with the separate 26 cantons, not the federal government, having the authority. The federal government did notify the Swiss people that in case of a German invasion, any claim that there had been a Swiss surrender should be disregarded as Nazi propaganda. And because the military power was in the hands of every Swiss man, the federal government would have been unable to surrender had it ever wanted to. " "Nothing could stop the Swiss militiamen from fighting to the very end. "Although the Germans several times massed troops on the Swiss border for an invasion, the invasion never went forward. With so many reasons to invade Switzerland, why did the Nazis desist? ... every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed. The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. " The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people. Switzerland protected her own Jews, and sheltered many more refugees of all religious backgrounds. Had America sheltered refugees at the same per capita rate as Switzerland, the United States would have taken in over three million refugees. Instead America accepted hardly any. " http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/swiss_militia.htm
|
|
#23
12-28-2002, 10:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
from Eric Margolis :
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0310-WWIIRevision.html "Switzerland was deterred from caving in to Nazi Germany by its highly decentralized system of government. The weak-willed federal government in Bern, which flirted with capitulation, simply could not order its independent-minded cantons, nor their citizens, to give up and surrender to the Nazis- as did centralized governments in France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. In the dark days from 1940-1945, Switzerland's armed citizen soldiers would not accept surrender, or any form of subservience, to Hitler. Machiavelli said of the Swiss, `they are the most armed, and the most free.' In the summer of 1940, the German High Command had at least three active plans for outflanking France's great chain of forts, the Maginot Line, by invading Switzerland. A month after the fall of France, in June, 1940, Hitler's and Mussolini's high commands prepared plan `von Menges,' under which Germany would seize the northern two thirds of Switzerland, while Fascist Italy annexed the portion south of the Alps. `I will show those herdsmen and cheese-makers,' Hitler vowed. Each Alpine valley and every pass would become a Thermopylae. The vital rail tunnels connecting Germany and Italy were readied for destruction. The small Swiss Air Force shot down 11 Luftwaffe aircraft that overflew Switzerland; hundreds of pro-Nazi Swiss were arrested, and at least 17 soldiers shot for treason - Though totally surrounded by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, and dependant on them for oil, food, and raw materials, tiny Switzerland remained defiant. In the face of Nazi threats, the Swiss took in 37,000 Jewish refugees - exactly 37,000 more than were accepted at the time by the US or Canada. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did not invade Switzerland because they needed it, as revisionist critics currently claim, for money-laundering and gold trading: Germany also conducted such transactions through Sweden, Turkey, Portugal, Argentina, and even the USA which, let's recall, was still a neutral when the Swiss were shooting down Luftwaffe ME-109's over Basel. Switzerland remained free because its citizen soldiers were ready to fight to the last man against Nazi Germany. " http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0310-WWIIRevision.html
|
|
#24
12-28-2002, 10:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Col. William Flatt:
http://indianamilitia.homestead.com/Swiss.html General Henri Cuisan, commander in chief of the Swiss militia, responded with Operations Order No. 2: "'At the border and between the border and army position, the border troops and advance guard persistently delay the advance of the enemy. The garrisons at the border and between the border and the works and positions making up the defensive front continue resistance up to the last cartridge, even if they find themselves completely alone." "The Fuhrer boasted that he would be 'the butcher of the Swiss,' but the Wehrmacht was dissuaded by a fully armed populace in the Alpine terrain." "The Swiss federal shooting festival, which remains the largest rifle competition in the world, was held in Luzern in June 1939. Hitler's takeover of Austria and Czechoslovakia was complete, both countries had been surrendered by tiny political elites who guaranteed that there would be no resistance. Swiss President Philipp Etter spoke at the festival, stressing that something far more serious than sport was the purpose of their activity. His comments demonstrated the connection between national defense and the armed citizen: "'There is probably no other country that, like Switzerland, gives the soldier his weapon to keep in the home. The Swiss always has his rifle at hand. It belongs to the furnishings of his home...That corresponds to ancient Swiss tradition. As the citizen with his sword steps into the ring in the cantons, which have the Landsgemeinde (government by public meeting), so the Swiss soldier lives in constant companionship with his rifle. He knows what that means. With this rifle, he is liable every hour, if the country calls, to defend his hearth, his home, his family, his birthplace. The weapon is to him a pledge and sign of honor and freedom. The Swiss does not part with his rifle.'" http://indianamilitia.homestead.com/Swiss.html
|
|
#25
12-28-2002, 11:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Martin J. Miller, Jr:
http://www.crpa.org/jan00pub.html "the most important reason was that the Swiss had decreed that they would not surrender; surrender was forbidden. Every man would defend his position to the last. There could be no surrender and no retreat. Also the Swiss were the best marksmen in Europe. The Swiss at the beginning of the war had an army made up of riflemen, with only a smattering of artillery and less than a score of modern combat aircraft. Yet, they intimidated the founders of the "Blitzkrieg" warfare, the very embodiment of high tech weapons and tactics in 1939-1943. The Swiss succeeded because they had the will to win, the will to resist and the means to inflict unacceptable casualties on the Germans. The Germans realized this and decided that a neutral Switzerland was more important than a "third front" that would bleed the Wehrmacht dry. "
|
|
#26
12-28-2002, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia Swiss doctrine is "Total Resistance." The Swiss plan to destroy their country totally rather than give it to an invader. Surrender is legally impossible. One of the most famous, and ancient militia are the swiss milita. It is not widely recognized, but Switzerland is the most militaristic society on Earth, maintaining more than twice as many active-duty soldiers per capita as the next-most-militaristic country, Israel, and a trained, mobilizable reserve militia of 36% of the total population. ...each year Zurich shuts down a whole day for its "Boys' Shooting Festival." Children, male and female, as young as eight and as old as seventeen compete in riflery. It is a traditional holiday. "
|
|
#27
12-28-2002, 11:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Except that none of those quotes show that [quote]No Swiss general, nor the president of Switzerland has the power to surrender[quote]None. So I am still waiting. Where is it exactly? No need for long quotes. Just the brief cite of the relevant part of the Swiss constitution would do.
And while you are reading the Swiss Constitution you might enjoy the parts about rent control and other such things. For a libertarian like yourself who abhorrs government intervention in private affairs that ought to set your blood boiling. I will be here waiting for that cite.
|
|
#28
12-28-2002, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carlo Stagnaro interview with Stephen P. Halbrook
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html "The Führer characterized Switzerland as the most despicable and wretched people and national entity. The Swiss were the mortal enemies of the new Germany." The Duce called Switzerland "an anachronism." Attack plans against Switzerland continued to be made. Hitler hated Switzerland – which he called a "pimple" on the face of Europe – for refusing to join the New Order When Hitler came to power in 1933, Nazi propaganda depicted Switzerland as one of several countries to be annexed as part of "Greater Germany." Unlike the other European neutrals, which spent money for the welfare state, the Swiss immediately began military preparations to repel an eventual German attack. In 1940, Switzerland was a potential southern invasion route to France, while Belgium and Holland were the northern invasion routes. The Germans avoided Switzerland, where every man was armed and the spirit of resistance predominated. When the Fascist government collapsed and the liberation of southern Italy began, Germany occupied northern Italy – which greatly increased the risk to Switzerland. Germany wanted the Swiss Alpine routes to ship soldiers and weapons, and the Swiss refused. But Switzerland provided sanctuary to Italian and French partisans and refugees. A Nazi invasion of Switzerland during any of the above periods would have faced the following: The Swiss border forces would have fought to the death and would have been eliminated. But the bridges and roads were charged with explosives and would be destroyed, as would the Gotthard and Simplon tunnels on the Alpine routes to Italy. Any German occupation of parts of Switzerland would have had extreme costs in blood. Unlike any country Germany occupied, every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Swiss government and military ordered that no surrender would take place, and any report of a surrender was to be regarded as enemy propaganda Machiavelli said it best: the Swiss are "armatissimi e liberissimi." From 1291, when the Swiss Confederation was born, armed Swiss peasants and herdsmen resisted the aggression of some of the great armies of Europe. Every man was expected to provide his own arms and to defend against any invasion. another country. This was the experience since medieval times. Armed Swiss commoners defeated the mightiest armies of invading knights at numerous battles – they left Charles the Bold in a ditch with his head crushed by a halberd at Nancy in 1477
|
|
#29
12-28-2002, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WW1 trenches near Switserland and the sea?
Quote:
Yes. Lots of armies have been "tempted" to enter Switzerland, in ww1, ww2, and for hundreds of years before. The location of Switzerland is very strategic, and its passes and bridges and tunnels are of immense value. However, it was not possible. The Swiss will not, and have not, allowed any foreign army to enter or invade their land, or to use Switzerland to send armies accross.
|
|
#30
12-28-2002, 12:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
All fine and interesting stories, I am sure, if I cared to read them but you still have not shown any proof that
Quote:
Ok, I'll wait some more. But, knowing you, I won't be holding my breath. You don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs do you?
|
|
#31
12-28-2002, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Susanann, while I am waiting I will note that the idea that the Swiss could put up more fighting power against the Germans that the British or the French or the Russians is ludicrous no matter how well it fits into your little view of the world.
You can post all the quotes you want about how ready the Swiss were to fight and it will not make any difference with regard to their actual capability. Remember all the fighting words of Saddam Hussein? Remember the "Mother of all Battles"? Words and bravado do not win battles. The reason Switzerland was not invaded by Hitler is not because Swiss babies hid guns in their diapers but because Hitler had no interest in invading Switzerland. As simple as that. If Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland instead of France, Switzerland would have been toast in a matter of hours. At any rate, I am still waiting for positive proof that Quote:
|
|
#32
12-28-2002, 01:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Then there's that whole disgraceful thing about becoming the bankers to the Nazi regime ("Please, Mr. Hitler, don't invade us too. We'll help!"), all those stolen Jewish assets they kept for the last 50+ years, etc.
|
|
#33
12-28-2002, 02:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't find Susanann's argument convincing. Hitler and his generals and the rank and file of the Wehrmacht were willing to continue fighting to the point of losing 2 or 3 million on the eastern front. I don't think they would have blanched at killing every Swiss citizen they could get their hand on if it had been to their advantage to do so, their own losses notwithstanding.
I still believe that Switzerland was left alone because of its usefulness to the combatants and its lack of value for any other purpose.
|
|
#34
12-28-2002, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It seems to me that the main reason Switzerland has not been invaded lately is that their isn't all that much in Switzerland that anybody wants all that badly. What are the natural resources of Switzerland? Does Switzerland have anything other than hydropower and scenery? You can burn coal or oil for power; you don't have to try to steal it from angry Swiss who'd just keep dynamiting the transmission lines anyway. And for scenery, why invade Switzerland when you can ski in Italy, France, Germany, or Austria and not have to worry about some modern Wilhem Tell taking potshots at you? Once you've carted away the gold and cheese, what have you got? Oil? Minerals? Purple plains? No, the main resource of Switzerland is the clever and industrious Swiss and there's no good way of making them work for you if they don't want to.
IMHO, the main reason the Swiss stayed out of the last two World Wars is simply that it wasn't worthwhile for either side to invade (and excellent secondary reasons have been given by others.)
|
|
#36
12-29-2002, 09:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
sailor, the cite you gave is to the current Swiss Constitution, in force from January 1, 2000. I agree it doesn't have any prohibition on surrenders.
However, the Swiss Constitution of 1874, which was in effect during WWI and WWII, contained the following clause: Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#37
12-29-2002, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This site has an animation of the western front
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/games/w...nt/index.shtml There was a "race to the sea" early on in the war that ground to a halt at Ypres. It's my impression that "sneaking" through Switzerland would have had about the same outcome as the battle of Verdun, and that's assuming the Swiss wouldn't have challenged the passage of either side through their territory. I did come across a picture of the terminus of no man's land at the sea. It was just strands of barbed wire that extended to the water line. (I neglected to copy the URL. I'll go back and see if I can find it again). The western front was a stalemate and I believe that the several battles at Ypres were more or less an attempt to outflank the enemy via a "walk down the beach" with horrendous results.
|
|
#38
12-29-2002, 10:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's a picture of the end 'o the line.
http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/ph...3/imag0218.jpg
|
|
#39
12-29-2002, 11:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
A law saying nobody is allowed to surrender and the only legal option is to continue to fight until the last one of us is dead would be pretty stupid. Not that I have not seen pretty stupid laws but when someone makes such a claim they should have some pretty good proof. The thing with susanann is that she goes around the threads making all these wild assertions and never backs them up with anything and when called on them she has *never* backed them up or said "gee, maybe I was mistaken". Never. She just disappears from the thread and ignores all evidence others may provide. We do not need people like that around here. And when I say "around here" I am referring to the planet Earth.
|
|
#40
12-29-2002, 11:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
BTW, note that the site says of the new constitution
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#41
12-29-2002, 12:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
sailor, your interpretation makes sense, in light of Switzerland's principle of neutrality. I wonder if Arnold could shed any light on the meaning of article 11?
|
|
#43
12-29-2002, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're most welcome kip70.
|
|
#44
12-30-2002, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The section of the line , from Ypres to the sea, was mainly manned by the small Belgium army that remained after the occupation of most of that country by Germany and was under direct command of the Belgium king. There is an impressive monument to this force at Nieuwpoort ( west of Ostend) which I think also marks the spot where the line reached the sea.
|
|
#45
12-30-2002, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, I still can't find the damned citation for this, but I swear I know it and I just might be correct. Here's what I wrote in this thread:
*** Both the French and the German lines made their way to the Swiss border and threupon were refused some distance along the flank. From the Swiss perspective, looking down from higher ground, they faced about ten miles of front, the left side being the refused French flank, the right side being the refused German flank. Both trench systems were under direct artillery and machine-gun observation from the higher Swiss ground. The flank held because it was so easily observed by the Swiss. Any attempt at incursion into Swiss territory would force the attacker to move between not one but two lines of fire, that of the Swiss and that of the defender. Furthermore, it would immediately enter the Swiss into hostile relations with the attacker and would allow the defender passage through Swiss territory into the unprotected attacker's rear. As a result, the southern flank was actually the most strategically dangerous part of the line for an attacker. Both the Germans and the French very carefully observed every possible courtesy with the Swiss who were observing them, and also with each other. I believe it was this section of the line where it was not uncommon for soldiers of both sides to be seen picking mushrooms in daylight in no-man's land. Also (supposedly, since I can't find the dang cite), there was a burgeoning trade between the Germans and the French--sausage and cheese for wine, among other things. *** Hope that helps. I wish you didn't have to take my word for it.
|
|
#46
12-30-2002, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Not directly related to the OP but, since Switzerland was mentioned , I am reminded of a line in one of the best movies of all time: The Third Man (Orson Wells)
Quote:
|
|
#47
12-31-2002, 08:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Dont be misled by anyone who wants to change history. There are many many revisionists today that want to discredit Switzerland, but no revisionist today can change the dispicable things that Hitler himself said of Switzerland, or what praise Churchhill and Roosevelt gave to Switzerland, or of how many Jewish Swiss were NOT killed. Facts are facts. The revisionists cannot change that Swizerland was an island of democracy in ww2 and it protected its own jews and took in more jewish refugees per capita than anyone else. So many people today are ashamed of themselves, and of how they themselves refused to give refuge to the jews, or else they are from countries who gave up and would not fight Hitler invading their own countries for more than a few days, and they are very jealous and envious of the Swiss, and of anyone who is willing and able to defend themselves, and they futilely and unsuccessfully want to bring Switzerland down to their low level. The fact is that Switzerland was not attacked by Hitler, despite the horrible things Hitler said of the Swiss. Hitlers intentions, his threats, and his words are there forever for all to see. People who try to get off topic and argue about anything except what really happened, are not fooling anyone.
|
|
#48
12-31-2002, 09:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
This is just pathetic. susanann, the fact is that you are the one lying. I am still waiting to see evidence supporting your assertion that
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#49
12-31-2002, 09:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The Swiss didn't mount a very effective resistance to Revolutionary and Napoleonic France.
|
|
#50
01-01-2003, 03:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've simply got to counter some of Susanann's inaccurate statements.
1) I don't know if they like war or not, but they sure like the money. The Swiss hired themselves out as mercenaries for a long long time. The Swiss were famous as mercenary pikemen in the pike and musket era. In the late 1790's to 1815 there were entire regiments of them in Napoleon's army. The French Foreign Legion was formed partly to put all the foreign soldiers in France in one place. Even today they provide the Vatican guards. There's nothing sinful about that. The Gurkhas do the same thing and are good at it. 2) One reason why Hitler did not invade Switzerland was because it was to his advantage not to. Switzerland provided banking services to the Nazis as well as allowing transport of materials into and out of Germany. If Swiss banking services and rail transport was closed to Germany, then do you think an armed militia would have stopped him? Hitler was prepared to invade England where the English would have been no less determined than the Swiss to fight him in the streets. What you are saying is an insult to the countries who defied Hitler and fought him. The Swiss stayed out of WWII by being realists not idealists. 3) "......will not permit nor tolerate other armies from entering or using their land or airspace." Do you know of any countries that allow that? 4) "The Swiss people are probably the most heavily armed citizens in the world, even more and better armed than the Americans or Isralies" I beg to differ. You've obviously never visited the homes of some rural militias here. 5) "......so if you were to fight Switzerland, you would have to kill them all. It is suicide for any army to enter Switzerland." It would not be suicide for any army to enter Switzerland. A more powerful army would simply destroy the armed forces of Switzerland and then kill all it's citizens who fought back. 6) "......or what praise Churchhill and Roosevelt gave to Switzerland," Well, you didn't hear what they were saying to each other privately. 7) "......or of how many Jewish Swiss were NOT killed. Facts are facts." It would be surprising if they were killed since Switzerland was "NEUTRAL". Save your praise for citizens of those countries allied to Germany or conquered by Germany who actively saved their Jewish compatriots at the risk of their own lives, sometimes even dying to do so. When I was about 10, I believed all the hype about the Swiss in WWII. I am no longer 10. The Swiss did what they did to survive in WWII. There's nothing wrong about that. The 40's was a long time ago, a lot of bad things were going on then, even without the war. We can't really judge what was going on then against our standards today. But making your country sound like some kind of angel invites the challenges that you are getting now.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
