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?
Thanks very much, Ave Minerva, for that picture. That was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. And thank you too, Susanann, for those very interesting facts about Switserland. I learned a lot from it.
You’re most welcome kip70.
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.
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.
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)
You are welcome Kip70.
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.
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
You made the assertion and all evidence presented indicates it is not true. You have very little regard for the truth. You are the one who will not answer the point and tries to create a smokescreen. Please prove or retract your assertion that
Brought to you by courtesy of MEBuckner in another thread:
The Swiss didn’t mount a very effective resistance to Revolutionary and Napoleonic France.
I’ve simply got to counter some of Susanann’s inaccurate statements.
- 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.
-
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.
-
“…will not permit nor tolerate other armies from entering or using their land or airspace.”
Do you know of any countries that allow that? -
“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. -
“…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. -
“…or what praise Churchhill and Roosevelt gave to Switzerland,”
Well, you didn’t hear what they were saying to each other privately. -
“…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.
I think the main reason why Hitler didn’t invade Switzerland, was because it provided no strategic benefits. Sure, it was a quicker way to france besides belgium, but the immense cost in troops, and material, not to mention how long it would’ve taken to conquer Switzerland, would’ve made it unfeasible. He was fighting a two front war as it was, he didn’t need to open up a Third front, and stretch himself even further. Besides, as soon as he attacks Switzerland, guess who they ally with. Exactly. Pretty soon, thousands of troops flood in through Switzerland, and Hitler has a bloody mess in the middle of his empire. The terrain is terrible, and the casualty rate would’ve been astronomical for the Germans.
I was watching the history channel the other day, and they were talking about the Swiss defenses during WW2. They had minimal defensive forces in the lowlands, just enough to pin down the Nazis while the mountain forces got ready, then they would retreat, and let the Germans run free until they hit the mountains. Then it’d become the Germans worst nightmare, a blood bath. The casualty rates could’ve been as high as 4:1, German:Swiss soldiers. Plus, the swiss were planning on blowing every major transport route, etc, meaning, that it would slow down movement exponentially. Pretty soon the Nazis would’ve been walking everywhere. Basically, the swiss were going to fight a Guerilla War…
I’m not condoning what Switzerland did, i’m just trying to say why Hitler chose not to invade Switzerland.
Neither army in WW1 tried to go through Switzerland, because the Swiss wouldn’t allow it.