Switzerland Gun Control: Voters Back EU Regulations

[MountainRaven]

Kind of an interesting debate on whether Switzerland could be invaded or not.

Common perception is the inpentrable mountain fortress, etc. One of my sons reminded me that Germany held France and it would have been trivial to sweep in through Geneva and head east.

I personally think the Swiss would of fought back and made it very expensive.

They take home guard fairly seriously and every town has bunkers and compounds. The ones I've seen in German-speaking Switzerland are embedded in the mountains. Clearly Germany could have taken them as would a modern large Army. But it would not be a matter of just dropping some bombs.

That said, after learning more about the Norway ww2 experience, partisan warfare can delay things, but rarely does it vanquish the invader. (There is a tiny but excellent Norwegian resistance museum in Oslow)

Here's what the Germans did with partisan warfare in Norway...

- partisans attack occupying forces? Kill 10 locals for every German soldier lost. Run out of men? Kill women and children.

- people try to flee to Sweden? Confiscate all the rubber boots, field boots, etc. that you need to make it while avoiding improved routes.

- locals still flee without decent outdoor footwear? Confiscate backpacks, sleeping bags, poncho's, parkas, anything you would need to survive outdoors in the winter.

They still fought, but were at a huge disadvantage.

We need to set aside perceptions we have about how occupying forces behave that are colored by our modern experiences in the US military and our allies.

Serious enemies (China/Russia) could / would be ruthless just like the Germans were in ww2 and others since.

As the United States, UK, and Free French found out, invading through mountains is not trivial. The Swiss took their territorial sovereignty and borders during WWII very seriously: Throughout WWII, the Swiss maintained a high level of readiness for their military, including keeping large numbers of reservists and militia on active duty. The Swiss shot down German fighters that violated their airspace with impunity. (The Swiss would also shoot down and force down American bombers violating their air space, but not without loses.)

And Germany did not, "hold," France. They occupied much of France, yes, but the rest of France was (supposedly) autonomous and a German ally (or else). Not saying that Vichy France would have turned on Germany, but the cost in men and matériel to invade Switzerland would have had significant and deleterious effects on Germany's ability to resist the Allies in the East and the Mediterranean.

[26 Inf]

Neither was Greece... but no one ever accused the little corporal, of rational thinking.

Totally agree. Do you think that Sea Lion would have succeeded in 1940?

[MountainRaven]

Totally agree. Do you think that Sea Lion would have succeeded in 1940?

[sgtrock82]

The Germans occupied the "rest" of France in 1942 to protect southern coastlines against potential Allied invasion, so were in a good position to stab into Switzerland. However by this time they were coming to appreciate how over stretched their forces were and as the swiss provided no serious problem to the reich, no invasion needed.

To suggest the invasion of Greece was nonsensical is completely ignorant. Germanys great folly here, as in the WW1 was its poor choice of friends. Their limp wristed Italian allies, who with no real record of success or even the industrial ability to wage war for more than a few months at the most, decided Greece would be an easy conquest. And like in the 3rd world countries of North Africa, Italy didnt do so hot.

In 1939, the Brits declared they would come to Greeces aid if attacked. The Commonwealth came, not in large numbers but It gave the Brits an "In" on continental Europe and an RAF presence that potentially threatened Germany's important sources of Oil in Romania that would be key in the coming invasion of USSR. Italy was on the verge of collapse as early as 1940 and had they collapsed the Mediterranean would have been the dominion of the Royal Navy and opened Occupied Europe to a much sooner Allied invasion unless an enormous amount of German men and material magically appeared to secure Italy. So keeping Italy in the game by fighting their battles for them was the only choice they had. Of course Had Italy just kept to itself and its colonial ambitions instead of trying to match German military prowess, evil may have triumphed. Greece at this time was border line Fascist itself.

Sealion would have failed no matter when it took place. Germany was totally unprepared for such a thing and the Royal Navy totally was.

Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk

[sundance435]

As the United States, UK, and Free French found out, invading through mountains is not trivial. The Swiss took their territorial sovereignty and borders during WWII very seriously: Throughout WWII, the Swiss maintained a high level of readiness for their military, including keeping large numbers of reservists and militia on active duty. The Swiss shot down German fighters that violated their airspace with impunity. (The Swiss would also shoot down and force down American bombers violating their air space, but not without loses.)

And Germany did not, "hold," France. They occupied much of France, yes, but the rest of France was (supposedly) autonomous and a German ally (or else). Not saying that Vichy France would have turned on Germany, but the cost in men and matériel to invade Switzerland would have had significant and deleterious effects on Germany's ability to resist the Allies in the East and the Mediterranean.

The Swiss battleplan acknowledged that they would have to abandon the population centers. Germany wouldn't have had to go very far into Switzerland to accomplish that and Italy would've been responsible for the Italian 1/4 of the country. I'm not saying the Swiss wouldn't have put up a good fight, but the outcome would've been forgone. Also, Germany did "hold" France after Nov. '42, precisely because they were worried Vichy would not resist an Allied invasion of the continent. Many hundreds of thousands of French fought willingly for the Nazis, before and after '42, so they didn't need a massive occupation force of non-French to control it.

Totally agree. Do you think that Sea Lion would have succeeded in 1940?

If it would've happened the August or September after the fall of France (not waiting for the Battle of Britain to play out), I think there's a better-than-a-coinflip chance it could've - I'm not even sure the logistics of that were possible, though. France was still mobilizing hundreds of thousands of troops up until the ceasefire, so Germany probably needed a large force in the field to keep the French from having second thoughts. The RAF was in dismal shape in the summer of '40. It's truly amazing what they pulled off during the Battle of Britain. The only real counterforce to a German invasion would've been the Royal Navy, but the Kriegsmarine arguably could've contended somewhat with the RN with U-boats and a concentration of their surface ships. The Italian navy's participation would've certainly shifted the sea balance.

That's some hubris, though, to decide that Russia was a better target instead.

[26 Inf]

He uses a lot of hindsight in analyzing why Hitler didn't invade - talking about Pacific Landings and D-day isn't germane in answering the question why Hitler didn't give it a go.

[SteyrAUG]

Totally agree. Do you think that Sea Lion would have succeeded in 1940?

Not without air supremacy, which is what the Battle of Britain was all about. Brits having a better appreciation for radar than the Germans and Germans trying to Blitz with planes rather than tanks made Hitler shelve the invasion and look East.

Really it was the only way he could have won, even if Moscow surrendered, the "bomb" was built with Berlin in mind and the device could have easily been delivered from England. But if Hitler somehow took England, Russia would have negotiated an armistice and that would have been the end of that.

It would also have changed everything as we would have had a bomb but no way to deliver it to Berlin. So we'd have bombed Japan and used it to threaten Germany, but we wouldn't have had a way to deliver the bomb to Germany. We'd have probably had to have a negotiated peace with Hitlers Germany and held the bomb in reserve for national defense.

[prdubi]

This is happening because stupid 3rd world cesspool people abused and abused the Swiss system.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk