DBWI: The Swiss Neutral?

What does everyone think about the prospect of the Swiss being neutral in WWII? I know it's ASB imagining a tiny country like Switzerland being able to stay neutral in a war where it was surrounded by an aggressive, brutal, and occupying power, but for the sake of argument...

What would the war have been like if the Germans hadn't had thousands of soldiers tied down in the Swiss Alps battling continued Swiss resistance, even after cities like Zurich were captured? We all know that the Swiss reduits became one of the most celebrated defensive guerrilla/resistance movements in history, so I'm partial to imagining that if the Germans hadn't invaded Switzerland in early 1941 they would have been a lot more successful in the war.
 

Krall

Banned
You're right, if Germany never invaded Switzerland in 1941 then it would probably have stayed neutral.

Chances are the Germans would do better without the Swiss to worry about, maybe they'll even be able to invade Russia properly, unlike the half-assed, badly thought-out invasion undertaken by tactical idiots using untrained conscripts as troops.

Then they may have enough industry, from the Russian west, to hold off the Allies for a little longer, maybe even into 1945! Though I doubt they'd be able to hold them off forever.
 
1945 seems a bit late but the Swiss did bang up some German infantry divisions pretty badly. I guess they might have lasted to '45 with some luck.
 

Krall

Banned
Yeah, I suppose 1945 may be pushing it a little, but it's not impossible.

Maybe, if the Germans attack the Swiss, then the Russian offensive may begin earlier than IOTL, maybe then the Russians will be the first to Berlin!
 
You mean, we wouldn't get the Eighth Army inyo Berlin until '45? Nightmarish? What are you, a Russowank?
 
You mean, we wouldn't get the Eighth Army inyo Berlin until '45? Nightmarish? What are you, a Russowank?

Quit with the Britwank. If you actually read the history books than you would know that the US 3rd Army under Patton was the one that conquered Berlin. I mean closest ever Montgomery was to Patton was 50 miles behind him.
 
Quit with the Britwank. If you actually read the history books than you would know that the US 3rd Army under Patton was the one that conquered Berlin. I mean closest ever Montgomery was to Patton was 50 miles behind him.

OOC: I know it's bad manners to bump your own thread, but oh well...

Your points are very true, but the Brits still took hell during their crossing of the Elbe at Magdeburg and the street-to-street fighting that ensued. Then again, the fighting in Berlin wasn't a cakewalk either; I've heard it said that it was the costliest battle in history! How's that for an Ameriwank?

With all that said, though, I can't move past how much the Swiss gave to the war effort against the Nazis after they were invaded. Who can ignore the darkest days of Zurich, where Reinhard Heydrich had sixty civilians murdered for every German soldier killed by the Swiss in the Alps?
 
Well, the financial chaos that accompanied the conviction of several members of the Swiss Bankers' Association in 1948 of war crimes would have certainly made the 1950s, more secure for Europe financially. Second, the banking laws that were reformed after 1953, to allow public disclosure of all banking transactions of persons, may not have existed, allowing criminal organizations such as the Yakuza and the Mafia the ability to hold financial accounts overseas. This would certainly create a world wherein the Bin Laden family's financial accounts, along with the funds of Saudi Arabian backers couldn't be frozen before the planned attack on New York City in 2001....
 
Come on guys, this is really, really absurd.

The Germans HAD to invade the Swiss. Think about the German Economic situation--their economy was going to collapse. And then there was all of the crazy German rhetoric about a "Germany including all Germans", irregardless of the fact that not all Germans wanted to live in Germany. There were cultural reasons for doing it that might well have trumped good sense.

Also, we know that Tannenbaum received approval, mostly because it offered a curveball around the Maginot Line WITHOUT INVADING Belgium. While the French were caught off guard by this offensive, I find it hard to believe this surprise was worth it. One wonders what would have happened if the French had fought with the same resolve they had in the first world war--they might well have used the Swiss strongpoints to create another stalemate. You guys know--the whole Petain suing for peace in June 1941 and Barbarossa set for April 1942. Could the Germans have really gained a whole extra year against the Soviets if they had beaten France in a Poland-Style blitz instead of an alpine slugfest?

Darn, so many possibilities...
 
what about the large percentage of swiss germans who supported the reich during the earlier part of the war?

Can't you say that about any country, though? We all had our nutjobs back then who supported the Nazis in Germany. But when the crap started to hit the fan, how many of those pro-Nazis turned into their worst opponents? I categorically disagree with your presumption that there was a "large percentage" of Swiss that supported the German onslaught. Their's was a unenviable position--stuck right next to an aggressive power eyeing France with the UK not entering the war until 1942? Please.
 
Another thing to consider is the effect on Wall Street and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). To this day, many European investors have used the collapse of the European Common Market (ECM) in Rome in 1953 as a major turning point. Apparently with the closure of Swiss bank accounts during the War Crimes Tribunals there was a sudden collapse of economic stability. This has led to a staggered financial recovery for nations such as Italy, Germany, and France. Why do you think Eisenhower sent troops into the area, starting in 1955 until 1975?
 
Top