True, but the Nazis did have an invasion plan drawn up to invade Switzerland, but they had their hands full with a war with Britain, Russia, USA and insurgents who are Slavic, Poles, Jewish, Communist(etc.), besides, the Nazi political agenda is to get rid of non-Aryans and establish an Aryan country all over Europe, the Germans didn't have an excuse to invade Switzerland yet because we didn't have the people the Nazis dubbed lesser races.

Economically, it could not be done. Look at what it is costing the United States to occupy tiny little Iraq, with a minority insurgency, and they can't achieve stability. It would cost trillions to occupy the world. No one could ever afford such a price. And no socialist economy could ever support such a venture.

Well, I'll agree that culture is a factor, but it still isn't the primary factor. The primary factor is - the guerrilla tactics.

No, it definitely would not have been worth it.

You guys keep going back to this priority issue. I could certainly see that as a possibility, however let's see some evidence. Show me some evidence that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland PRECISELY because they did not view it as a priority.

Ok, that's your opinion, but let's see some evidence that this was their view.


Because Hitler spoke about world domination.

Wouldn't have been possible. Look at what it is costing the United States to occupy tiny little Iraq, and they are failing at achieving stability there. The cost of occupying the world would be trillions of dollars. No country could afford it, even with the addition of slave labor.



Actually, that doesn't prove that they could have successfully occupied Europe for any significant amount of time. I realize we're both involved in speculation here, but my only provable point here is that the Germans weren't as powerful as history paints them out to be. Germany simply could not mass produce enough equipment to successfully occupy Europe for any significant amount of time.

The United States could mass produce "BIG IRON." And this was a major reason why the Allies won the war.

From the Early Warning Report of October 2006 by Richard Maybury:

"In World War II, one of the most famous German
tank units was the fearsome Panzer Lehr Division. On
the morning of July 25, 1944, Panzer Lehr was in the
path of Allied forces moving eastward across France
near St. Lo.

Panzer Lehr had 2,200 men and 45 operational tanks.
The Allied attack on Panzer Lehr began with waves
of P-47 Thunderbolt fighters, fifty at a time. Every two
minutes a wave would sweep across Panzer Lehr,
dropping a hurricane of napalm.

The P-47s departed, and were replaced by waves of
medium bombers dropping 500-pound bombs.

After the medium bombers were through, the
surviving Germans heard 1,500 heavy four-engine B-17
and B-24 bombers. Try to imagine the sound of 6,000
engines headed directly at you.

The B-17s and B-24s laid a carpet of bombs across
Panzer Lehr, churning the earth into a landscape of
craters and wreckage; 55-ton tanks were thrown into the
air, landing in pieces upside down.

After the heavy bombers departed, another 300 P-38
Lightning fighters swept across the remnants of Panzer
Lehr, dropping incendiaries and anti-personnel fragmentation
bombs.

Then hundreds of artillery pieces opened up. After
them, battalions of Allied tanks came in.

The 45 tanks of Panzer Lehr had been attacked by
more than 2,000 planes.

In war as in peace, humans have two general ways to
get things done — use labor, or capital. To destroy
Panzer Lehr, US generals could have sent legions of
troops, and suffered hundreds of casualties. Instead
they used machinery.

Labor vs. Capital on the Battlefield

Ever since the Civil War, which was the world’s first
industrial war, the US armed forces have always chosen
“big iron” over body bags. Big iron is expensive, but
the American taxpayer has been willing to pay for it.

A World War II four-engine B-24 bomber contained
1.5 million parts. Henry Ford’s Willow Run plant
turned out one B-24 every 63 minutes.

A total of 18,188 B-24s were built at all aircraft
plants, in addition to 12,729 B-17s and 3,970 B-29s.
That’s a total of 34,887 four-engine heavy bombers.

The number of four-engine heavy bombers put into
the air by technological pipsqueaks Germany and Japan
together was 204. Their gadget shops produced impressive
inventions, but these little countries had sparse
ability to mass produce them.

Of the 46 divisions Hitler had in France in 1941, 1.5
were mechanized; the other 44.5 were foot soldiers and
horses. When the Americans invaded Normandy in
June 1944, the entire US military force was mechanized;
the Germans were dependent on 1.25 million
horses.

The most powerful and decisive weapon of World
War II (and still today) was the aircraft carrier. The
Germans tried to build one, but failed to solve the
technical problems. The Americans built 146 carriers
in 44 months. Laid end-to-end, they’d stretch 17
miles end - to-end, total US tanks built in WWII would
stretch 300 miles.

Wingtip to wingtip, total planes, 3,600 miles.

At any given moment, the average Japanese soldier
deployed in the Pacific was accompanied by two
pounds of supplies. The American, four tons.

Generals Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower and their
associates have received the credit, but it was really
General Motors, General Dynamics and Rosie the
Riveter who buried the enemy — under a Himalaya of
US hardware.

Washington’s amazing ratio of capital to labor is
why less than 1% of the people killed in World War II
were Americans."

Link



Interesting story. Thanks.

Right, but they could still thwart stability and control after the invasion moved in. That's the real issue with occupation. This increases the costs for the occupying nation.


Again, I'm looking for verifiable historical evidence of this.

Let's take a look at Norway. Norway was neutral during WW1 and they DIDN'T get attacked in that war...

Regarding the second world war, Hitler's decision to attack Norway during WWII was actually thought about over a course of months. They almost didn't take the chance. But, again, Norway's problem wasn't that they were neutral, it's that they weren't neutral and demonstrably strong also. One cannot be a neutral passivist. One must be neutral, fortified, and have a heavily armed populace and a strong military.

As I stated earlier, the Swiss actually invited German generals into their country to observe their defenses. One of the Nazi generals later stated "We shall leave the little porcupine alone."

From the following link we see the Norwegians were not truly prepared for war as the Swiss were:

"The imminent threat of war in the late 1930s brought defence issues into the forefront of Norwegian political debate. The socialists had previously strongly opposed granting funds to the military, and were partly supported in this view by the Liberals."

We see also from the same source: "In occupied Norway civilian resistance grew from year to year. Secret military forces were also assembled and constituted something of a threat to the Germans." So they did start fighting back, but they were not prepared for this sort of resistance from the beginning. The Swiss were.

being neutral and fortified would indeed increase your changes of not being attacked. but norway was still very important strategically, it cannot be said for shure that better fortification would have kept them neutral. their strategic position is crucial for the defense of scandinavia and thus their own. switzerland has never been usefull territory to dispose of in a war for europe

This is my main point. Glad we agree. I believe the United States could easily maintain a neutrality policy because of its military strength. I would prefer that the U.S., and for that matter - all nations, were more like Switzerland in this regard.

Switzerland has done very well for itself, no war for ages, they have the highest age expectancy of any European country (and more than all of the American countries), and they have national service, and could call a lot of people, and they have the biggest gun-per-person ratio on the world, and they are probably the most peaceful country, they invented the Red Cross, and refuse to join the EU or NATO or anything like that.

__________________
The Way Of The Intercepting Fist

It doesn't help to be both neutral and have strong military. For example Czechoslovakia had to be pacified somehow, as it existed on land Hitler imagined as purely German inhabited and also like France had to be defeated before he turned to Russia. Otherwise there would be a risk of huge amount of Russian troops, tanks and airplanes being transported right into the heart of Germany and attacking.

As Slartibartfas said, Switzerland was simply not worth the effort. But I think it would have been attacked later.

It's completely unfounded to claim neutrality or strong military of a small country can save it. There are much more factors involved.

__________________
No loyalty towards the EU.

In Russia is freedom of speech. In America is also freedom after speech. -- Yakov Smirnoff

Switzerland couldn't have defeated the Nazi's without help, but for such a little country packed up there in the mountains, it has a good military.

__________________
The Way Of The Intercepting Fist

??? A strong military is not a factor in a war? Sure, population is obviously a factor, but a smaller force has defeated a larger force many times in military history.