4 ms·
>Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective. That was the whole plan in WW2, take the
by nix23 6y ago
>Considering what a rough time the US (and Russia) has had in Afghanistan, I suspect they'd still be fairly effective.
That was the whole plan in WW2, take the army back to the mountains leave the city's and flatland to the enemy, then start Guerilla warfare and protect the big Mountain Fortresses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Redoubt_(Switzerland)
- iguy 6y agoAlso, viewed from the other side, the point of taking Switzerland would have been to have easier transport across the alps, Germany-Italy. But with all the bridges & tunnels blown up, this benefit would be lost. In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit. (Much the same game-plan seems not to have worked for Afghanistan, though. High cost, zero benefit, lots of invasions.)
- hutzlibu 6y ago"In other words, I think the Swiss wanted to tilt the cost/benefit calculation for invaders, not only by increasing the cost, but also by reducing the benefit. " And that worked, as for sure germany did not wanted a neutral power in the middle of their empire, but due to cost/benefit the plan of invading was always pushed back till the war was over. So this was also the plan for a potential cold war escalation.