Hmm, no. I already know all I need to know about the Swiss. What I want to know is where you got the idea that
That’s what I want to know.
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. "
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
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
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. "
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. "
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.
Carlo Stagnaro interview with Stephen P. Halbrook
“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
Kip70, I hope my posts have made clear the answer to your questions.
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.
All fine and interesting stories, I am sure, if I cared to read them but you still have not shown any proof that
None.
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?
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
They certainly had no problem letting the Nazis transport Jews from Italy through Switzerland on their way to extermination camps when the routes through Austria were closed late in the war: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/train/
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.
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.
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.)
Well, I think I have waited enough. I think we can be pretty certain that the line that says
is not true.
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:
Taken by itself, that would lend some support to Susanann’s assertion. However, it would have to be read along with Article 8, which provided:
Taking the two together, it sounds to me like the military was forbidden to capitulate, but the civil government of the Confederation had the power to make peace, which presumably could involve an agreement on a cease-fire, armistice, etc.
This site has an animation of the western front
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/games/western_front/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.
Here’s a picture of the end 'o the line.
http://www.ku.edu/~kansite/ww_one/photos/bin03/imag0218.jpg
I believe you are misinterpreting the word “capitulation” contained in the phrase “No military capitulations may be concluded”. Note that the primary meaning of the word is “a set of terms or articles constituting an agreement between governments” and so I would interpret that clause as to mean that the government is prohibited from entering into military alliances. This interpretation also makes more sense. In any case, we are reading a translation and would have to see the original words to be certain. In any cse, as you point out, article 8 gives the government the power to declare war and to make peace.
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.
BTW, note that the site says of the new constitution
It is interesting to see susanann defend Switzerland when she complains so much about the intervention of US laws in people’s lives. She conveniently ignores that the Swiss constitution gives the government way more power to intervene in people’s lives to the point where it repeats several times that
susanann just ignores the facts which do not agree with her views and then makes up a few more “facts” which support what she would like reality to be.