[z_whalen]

Switzerland would not have lasted long. They were in the belly of the beast, Germany could have swallowed them up at any moment, but played it smart and decided to put down those who were actually putting up a resistance first. Leaving the fate of your country to the mercy of another is not a good idea.

[Marcarc]

This is from 'history journal':<br /> <br /> The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland, but at a fearful price. The Wehrmacht expected 200,000 German casualties; it would have taken a very long time to remove the Swiss military from the Alpine “Reduit” to which they planned to make a stand. And by the time the Swiss were defeated, every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed. (Switzerland provides access between Italy and Germany)<br /> <br /> 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. <br /> <br />

[z_whalen]

<br /> The fact of the matter is Switzerland would have fallen regardless of the amount of casualties they inflicted on the Germans. A good defense is not about inflicting as many casualties as possible it is about detering, or failing that, expelling your enemy.<br /> <br /> Claiming neutrality may have slightly prolonged Switzerland's existence, but they would still have been doomed had the Allied powers not succeeded. The Swiss basically allowed the Germans all the time and space they needed to plan an invasion, rather than keeping them on their toes by mounting an offense. Though an offensive strategy would have brought them into conflict with Germany, invading Switzerland would have pulled Germany into a quagmire, further stretching their forces. If Switzerland were properly prepared to fight a war, World War II might have been resolved much more quickly. Basically, what you are arguing is that it is best to sit out and watch, staking your nation's survival on one belligerent while doing little or nothing to aid them. That seems somewhat cowardly to me.<br /> <br /> It is true, the Swiss militia was and is a formidable force, but an armed citizen is still no replacement for a trained and hardened professional soldier. The universal militia system could work to some extent in defending our country, quite possibly succeeding because of our country's size and varied terrain, but it would be most effectively used to compliment a strong standing army.

[Marcarc]

First, there are no 'facts of the matter' when it comes to historical hypothetical situations. Likewise Great Britain and Canada would have fallen had it not been for the soviet union (there were far more german units on the eastern front). There is simply no way of knowing such things and pointless to argue about them. We know from the fact that they did not get conquered that they were successful. Had they had a different type of military, or been openly attacking Germany then Germany 'may' have been forced into the endevour of, as Hitler said, 'butchering the swiss'. So obviously we can't argue with their success. <br /> <br /> Before arguing points of opinion, you can do some research online and you'll discover that switzerland did not 'sit out' the war by any means. Switzerland has a large german population, as well as Italian heritage, which means that in all likelihood they would be expected to be like Austria and fight on the german side. They still did considerable trade with the axis forces, thus there were policies which irritated both the allied and axis powers. That's far from sitting out. Your complaint is that 'they did not do as we did' which is specious at best, Canada's role in the war certainly did not paint us in rosy colours.<br /> <br /> Your argument that they should have been prepared to do more so that we could do less is not apt. A country can be only expected to act in ways that defend it's survival when it's survival is threatened, which is what the swiss did. This becomes even more blatant when you consider they were almost completely surrounded by enemies. If you read your history while Canada contributed to the war, we risked far less as a country than the swiss with their espionage endevours and specialized equipment. Canada's upper class benefitted simply by shipping off to die all those people who their own country was starving and brutalizing during the depression (note that there was money for feeding, clothing, and housing soldiers, but not workers). And as always, the war profiteers made off like bandits on the backs of canadians.<br /> <br /> You are also missing the point that by training every Swiss WAS a trained and professional soldier, "ready to be mobilized (by the full time military) at a moment's notice" By your similar logic you could easily argue that Britain's form of military would have been insufficient because they would have been conquered had it not been for the soviet union, where far more soldiers died and far more german troops and equipment were necessary to combat them. All such arguments are pointless because history is difficult enough to gauge with the facts, let alone the hypotheticals. <br /> <br /> We know that such a system as the Swiss is actually far more desirable since World War 2 than our system, because warfare has continually increased in targeting civilians. When aggression comes onto one's soil, those not of the military are simply less armed, and less trained- they are still seen as 'potential threats'. <br /> In the case of Canada I think it would be an interesting study to see how many are in the military simply because decent paying jobs are not available to them. As in other places, increasing the military is often 'those with means' way of getting the less desirables to do their dirty work. <br /> This is opinion now, but I would far rather have a system such as Switzerlands. A policy of neutrality; a governing system worth defending; the ability and desirability to defend it. Personally, I don't want my tax dollars going to where the military has traditionally taken them, for those who feel differently that strongly, they should pay the cost themselves or sign up themselves.