What the heck are you talking about?
Ruby Ridge and Waco have nothing to do with the OP.
I’m sure that’ll prevent the invading army from coming to your house later with more fire power and no qualms about destoying the house and anybody within if need be. :rolleyes:
Originally Posted by Susanann
Yes. Being strong, armed, and willing and able to resist completely without surrendering made the Swiss VERY tough. Too tough for Hitler’s armies.
- The Swiss DID!!! win! The goal of the Swiss was to remain free, remain unconquered, keep their wealth, keep their currency, not be invaded, make it not worth it for Hitler to invade, and they were completely successful. The Swiss DID!!! fight and the Swiss DID shoot down German planes and the Swiss also gave sanctuary to foreigners/Jews/refugees. The Swiss won.
- Hitler DID!!! was to invade Switzerland. Hitler did not like Switzerland, and more than once Hitler wanted to/planned to invade Switzerland but his generals pointed out how foolish it would be to try to invade Switzerland, and the generals talked Hitler out of it.
I think he needed oil resources in the Soviet Union.
Originally Posted by Susanann
I can speak for myself.
IF somebody breaks into/invades my house, I will shoot them dead. Period. No need to play any hypothetical mind games or any “mystery option” games. I dont bargain with invaders.
You mean like…invading armies coming into Vietnam?
There’s no evidence for this. Hitler never had any real desire to invade Switzerland, or Spain, or Ireland, or Sweden. None of these were necessary for him, especially because the countries all did, in many ways, what he wanted anyway.
Originally Posted by Susanann
If Hitler had left Switzerland and Russia alone, then Hitler would probably still be in power of the rest of Europe today. The lesson is: Don’t mess with countries that will not surrender.
Doesnt matter. It was/is a mistake to invade any country that will not surrender. Hitler lost the war because he invaded a country that wouldnt stop fighting. There are too many casualities incurred by an invading army when fighting a country that believes in** “Total Resistance”** . Hitler should have got his resources elsewhere… from countries that “lay down” .
Originally Posted by Susanann
2. Hitler DID!!! was to invade Switzerland. Hitler did not like Switzerland, and more than once Hitler wanted to/planned to invade Switzerland but his generals pointed out how foolish it would be to try to invade Switzerland, and the generals talked Hitler out of it.
**
Operation Tannenbaum**
Millions of Vietnamese died. Millions.
Yes, they did. Yet, Vietnam is ruled by the Vietnamese. Not China. Not Japan. Not France. Not the United States. Asymmetric warfare/guerrilla warfare/insurrection always has a high casualty rate. It is one of the costs of doing business that way.
Of course, the United States wasn’t trying to conquer Vietnam. Asymmetric warfare works only when your enemy doesn’t want you wiped out. In a war of conquer like WWII, the resistors who fire on police or soldiers are quickly liquidated.
In response to Susanann’s nonsense, hindsight is only 20/20. It’s easy to say now that the Jews should have coalesced into one giant army and shot the bastards who were trying to kill them, without knowing anything about their socio-political status on the continent at the time and what expectations they had of the Nazi regime, as well as the logistics of organizing a coherent resistance.
You might as well argue that the if Germans had been smart enough not to let the Nazis come to power, then they wouldn’t have started a war in which they got their asses kicked, or going back further, if Hitler’s father had used a condom, they never would have ended up with a mad dictator. It’s really nothing but conjecture that doesn’t take into account the reality of the times.
You know, with all the millions upon millions of tons of munitions that the US alone expended on them, the Vietnamese probably could not tell the difference between the foreign powers that wanted to “wipe them out” and which were interested in mere conquest.
Of course insurrectionists who fire on police or soldiers can expect an overwhelming response. That’s why the smart ones don’t try something asinine like getting into a pitched battle. They harass. They sabotage. They shoot and scoot. They make liberal use of IED’s and other booby traps. If the conquerors start civilian reprisals, that breeds more insurrectionists. Mao, among others, figured all this out and explained it in some detail a long time ago. Successful insurrectionists have to be very cold-hearted when it comes to their own side taking casualties.
But bear in mind that we’re talking about MFing Hitler, who was as cold-hearted as they came regarding people that were not on his side. Shoot at a German (or Nazi-allied) policeman or soldier during WWII and they’ll level your house to make an example of you.
Adding a lot of exclamation marks doesn’t make your point any stronger.
I would point out that lots of European countries succeeded in not getting invaded; Sweden, Portugal, and Spain all stayed out of the war as well, and Turkey if you count them.
I will be convinced of the military effectiveness of Switzerland when they fight a war and win. Anyone can talk tough. Just imagining how tough they must be because they have a militia doesn’t prove anything, and centuries of military experience demonstrates that what happens to partisans when they fight organized armies is that the partisans die a lot.
You seem to be ignorant of the fact that the Germans fought partisans all over Europe. The casualty ratio of partisans to Nazis was at least two hundred to one. To become a partisan against a ruthless occupying force is to commit yourself to suicide.
Again, your exclamation marks are not convincing.
The Germans didn’t invade Switzerland for exactly the same reason they didn’t invade Sweden; because those countries gave Germany what they wanted, and occupying them would have offered to military advantage. Germany didn’t have to invade. Switzerland effectively became an economic vassal state of Germany.
Furthermore, you seem to be ignorant of Switzerland’s preparations for German invasion. The Swiss absolutely did NOT plan on resisting Germany by having people pull rifles out of their closets and resist as partisans - since that very obviously would not work. They increased defense spending by 500% and went into full-bore mobilization of their regular army, putting three corps on their border with Germany. Nonetheless, they likely wouldn’t have stood any more a chance than Poland did.
And yet there were resistance movements in every country the Germans occupied.
Countries like Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, and Sweden did essentially the same things that countries like Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Poland, and the Netherlands did - they tried to avoid a war with Germany by negotiating. Every country had a different balance of things that could be offered, things that Germany wanted, ability to resist, and geography, so some countries were successful in staying neutral and some weren’t. But there was no magic formula that a country could use to guarantee peace.
In the real world, Hitler did leave Switzerland alone.
It’s this attitude of resistance to invaders unto death and the gun behind every door that has made Alabama un-occupiable by any invading force. Oh wait.
Some more info on the Dutch surrender in WW2:
Correct.
As far as the Dutch go, that is a bit romanticised. Most European countries had some form of resistance, and Holland was neither more cowardly or more heroic in that regard . On the other hand, Holland was one of the countries where most Jews were taken from, mostly because we had such good records and those records were often sheepishly and obediently handed to the new Nazi overlords.
What hasn’t been mentioned yet, was why the Dutch gave up to the Nazi’s so quickly. The nazi’s superior airforce has already been mentioned, but not how they used it to bring the Dutch down. The bastards bombarded our second largest town, Rotterdam, completely to smithereens, and then said: “Give it up or Amsterdam is next”.
The bombing of Pearl Harbour was worse enough, but that was a military target, a marine base. How would you have responded if you didn’t have an airforce, your enemy did, and he just bombarded Boston off the map and threatened to do the same to New York?