Why?

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
panzerIV
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 03 Feb 2003, 16:08
Location: Sweden

Why?

#1

Post by panzerIV » 04 Jan 2004, 22:23

Why didn't Hitler take over Switzerland?

User avatar
EER
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 25 Aug 2003, 22:17
Location: USA

#2

Post by EER » 04 Jan 2004, 22:31

They were a neutral country, just like Spain and Ireland. It would have been another headache Hitler didn't want and besides Switzerland served as a valuable barrier to an Allied invasion from the south.


User avatar
Zapfenstreich
Member
Posts: 630
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:58
Location: The Old Northwest Territory

#3

Post by Zapfenstreich » 04 Jan 2004, 22:51

EER wrote:They were a neutral country, just like Spain and Ireland. It would have been another headache Hitler didn't want and besides Switzerland served as a valuable barrier to an Allied invasion from the south.
While Spain and Ireland were outwardly neutral states they were tacit supporters of the Nazis. Both nations would benefit greatly if Germany won the war.

On the other hand, Switzerland was truely neutral and gave the Nazis the communication zone they needed to maintain some contact with the Allies. Sweden was also used as a neutral communication zone but her sympathies were secretly with the Allies. and the Nazis never invested the faith in her that they could with der Schweiz.

Z

CHRISCHA
Member
Posts: 2477
Joined: 28 Jan 2003, 19:21
Location: England, Kent

#4

Post by CHRISCHA » 04 Jan 2004, 23:15

Wasn't there also minor financial matters to consider?

User avatar
panzerIV
Member
Posts: 702
Joined: 03 Feb 2003, 16:08
Location: Sweden

#5

Post by panzerIV » 05 Jan 2004, 00:11

but why wasn't Switzerland part of Hitlers 'Grossdeutschland'? the people of Switzerland were 'aryan' and spoke german... just like the ones in the Sudetland and Austria...

User avatar
Siegfried Wilhelm
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 17 Jun 2002, 16:19
Location: Kleinkleckersdorf, NC, Confederate States of America

#6

Post by Siegfried Wilhelm » 05 Jan 2004, 02:59

Hate to say this, but he was most very definitely planning on doing just that...I have seen the operational maps deliniating the specific units that were to attack and where the unit's goals were and so on. The whole country was to be taken and units were actually slated for occupation duties.
I am not sure why the plan was not activated, I have a bit of information (plus copies of the aforementioned maps), but I have not yet bothered to read it all.
If there is sufficient interest I will dig it out.

SW~

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#7

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 Jan 2004, 03:27

I think it was true back then as it was after the war, Switzerland has one of the largest standing armies in the world as most males were members of their "national guard" Plus Switzerland is very defensible because of all the Mountains. Taking Switzerland would not have been a "cake-walk".

At the time Switzerland was a world bank of sorts besides having a fair influence as a center on world affairs( Geneva Convention, Red Cross). Perhaps Nazi Germany was a Pariah in the world at the time but even even Nazi Germany could not afford to freeze itself out of all international finacial and world affairs. I seriously doubt the rich industrailists and many of the high ranking nazis would have like their fortunes being confiscated by the Swiss to buy weapons to use against them.

User avatar
Eden Zhang
Member
Posts: 1196
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 10:54
Location: XXX

#8

Post by Eden Zhang » 05 Jan 2004, 03:59

Switzerland had access to an enourmous reserve military. Almost every Swiss man was in the reserves, he had his uniform, his rifle and ammo at home. Within 72 hours the Swiss could mobilise 2.5 million soldiers (I'm not sure of the numbers, could someone clarify?).

Not only that, Switzerland has been built in a way that makes invasion and occupation extremely difficult. Bridges and railways are built with tank traps, houses are built with bomb shelters under them and the Swiss military maintain fortifications in the alps, to be used as a staging point to retake the fertile vallys if the country does get overrun.

Swiss military doctrine is "Total resistance". If an invader cannot be fought back, the country must be destroyed so they can gain nothing out of the invasion. From what I hear, it is legally impossible for Swiss soldiers to surrender.

User avatar
Albert
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 01 Oct 2002, 17:56
Location: VLAANDEREN

#9

Post by Albert » 05 Jan 2004, 13:04

There were a lot of plans to attack Switzerland, but Hitler didn't do this, because the resources to carry out the attack were necessary elsewhere.

User avatar
K.Kocjancic
Member
Posts: 6788
Joined: 27 Mar 2003, 20:57
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia

#10

Post by K.Kocjancic » 05 Jan 2004, 13:21

Karbiner98 wrote:From what I hear, it is legally impossible for Swiss soldiers to surrender.
Can anyone of our Swiss members comfirm this?

Regards,
Kocjo

whocares
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 03 Jan 2004, 16:36
Location: GER

#11

Post by whocares » 05 Jan 2004, 13:46

switzerland populiation consists ca. 1/4 of france 1/4 of italien and 1/2 of german speaking people so the switzerland which made big business with nazi germany could not occupied by nazi germany because of the italien people - it would be a affront against mussolini.

User avatar
hauptmannn
Member
Posts: 1103
Joined: 12 Jul 2003, 15:15
Location: France

#12

Post by hauptmannn » 05 Jan 2004, 13:46

I cannot comprehend why a neutral country is so highly defensive?
but why wasn't Switzerland part of Hitlers 'Grossdeutschland'? the people of Switzerland were 'aryan' and spoke german... just like the ones in the Sudetland and Austria...
The Austrians and the Sudenten Germans are German people, they spoke German and Hitler had great respect for his native homeland

User avatar
Johnny
Member
Posts: 525
Joined: 06 May 2003, 14:37
Location: Sweden, Scania

#13

Post by Johnny » 05 Jan 2004, 19:37

I've read about a plan to invade France through Switzerland, or maybe it was the Allies who planned to invade Germany thru it, can't really recall. For me it's abvious why Hitler didn't invade Switzerland, for the exact same reason he didn't invade sweden, the country wasnt a threat before the war, and not during neither, it would have streched the german lines even thinner during the war and more importantly an invasion would have interrupted the german war machine, in Sweden's case beacuse of the stop in production and delivering of iron, and in Switzerland the whole reichbank money/gold exchange program would be destroyed. Natuarly the neutrality of these countries were far too usefull to be tampered with.

User avatar
Westwall
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 17:46
Location: Luxembourg

#14

Post by Westwall » 05 Jan 2004, 20:02

wasnt the codename for an (possible) occupation of Switzeland "OP Tannenbaum"?

Can anyone confirm that?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

#15

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 05 Jan 2004, 20:25

I cannot comprehend why a neutral country is so highly defensive?
There are a lot of people who like to rob banks.Switzerland is/was the biggest bank in the world .

On the flip side who wants to put their money in country or bank that is not "totally" secure. So the security of Switzerland is synomous with the security of their international banks.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”