3 ms·

> It probably wouldn't have been at peace since 1815 if it had not had enough defences to put off other countries from invading in WW1 and 2. This is a oft rep

> It probably wouldn't have been at peace since 1815 if it had not had enough defences to put off other countries from invading in WW1 and 2. This is a oft repeated myth. Switzerland would have been conquered within a day by any major power in ww1 or ww2. The reason why switzerland isn't conquered is because they serve as a money laundering/transfer center for every power. Swizterland's "defenses" are for show. Swizterland's shield is it's dependable position as banker for nations and the elites.

nickik 9y ago
This is simply wrong. Conquering parts of the flat lands could have been pretty easy but the Swiss strategy was retreat into the mountain area. And if you have ever looked at the modern american army in afganistan then you will know that you can't just show up with some people and resources and take everything over. Effective defense is about causing more pain then it is worth conquering you. Also lets remember that in WW1 Netherlands was not attacked either in WW1. Generally its just not worth attacking small neutral countries. Banking is just one of many aspects, its simply false to claim that it is the major reasons.
- setecgastronomy 9y ago
  > Conquering parts of the flat lands could have been pretty easy but the Swiss strategy was retreat into the mountain area. That isn't a strategy. That's how you lose. So they hide in the mountains and starve? > And if you have ever looked at the modern american army in afganistan then you will know that you can't just show up with some people and resources and take everything over. Last I checked, we conquered afghanistan. And there are many countries with mountains. And they were all conquered pretty much. You could argue that the swiss population wouldn't have been "subdued". But it's absurd to claim switzerland is some impregnable military power. They are not. > Effective defense is about causing more pain then it is worth conquering you. I know. That's my point. It's switzerland's money laundering role that made conquering switzerland pointless. Not the silly notion of switzerland's military prowess. > Generally its just not worth attacking small neutral countries. No. It's not worth attacking small neutral countries that serve a purpose. > Banking is just one of many aspects, its simply false to claim that it is the major reasons. Banking is the ONLY aspect. After all, "switzerland" had been conquered MANY times in history. From the romans, hapsburgs, etc. Did switzerland get their mountains in the last 150 years? Switzerland is a joke when it comes to the military. Their saving grace is their role in money laundering and banking.

nickik 9y ago

This is simply wrong. Conquering parts of the flat lands could have been pretty easy but the Swiss strategy was retreat into the mountain area. And if you have ever looked at the modern american army in afganistan then you will know that you can't just show up with some people and resources and take everything over. Effective defense is about causing more pain then it is worth conquering you. Also lets remember that in WW1 Netherlands was not attacked either in WW1. Generally its just not worth attacking small neutral countries. Banking is just one of many aspects, its simply false to claim that it is the major reasons.

setecgastronomy 9y ago
> Conquering parts of the flat lands could have been pretty easy but the Swiss strategy was retreat into the mountain area. That isn't a strategy. That's how you lose. So they hide in the mountains and starve? > And if you have ever looked at the modern american army in afganistan then you will know that you can't just show up with some people and resources and take everything over. Last I checked, we conquered afghanistan. And there are many countries with mountains. And they were all conquered pretty much. You could argue that the swiss population wouldn't have been "subdued". But it's absurd to claim switzerland is some impregnable military power. They are not. > Effective defense is about causing more pain then it is worth conquering you. I know. That's my point. It's switzerland's money laundering role that made conquering switzerland pointless. Not the silly notion of switzerland's military prowess. > Generally its just not worth attacking small neutral countries. No. It's not worth attacking small neutral countries that serve a purpose. > Banking is just one of many aspects, its simply false to claim that it is the major reasons. Banking is the ONLY aspect. After all, "switzerland" had been conquered MANY times in history. From the romans, hapsburgs, etc. Did switzerland get their mountains in the last 150 years? Switzerland is a joke when it comes to the military. Their saving grace is their role in money laundering and banking.