Switzerland was not attacked by Hitler, why?

Unless by 'German' you mean all the descendants of the ancient 'German' tribes. qoute gcle2003

Edited by Scorpian - 19-Apr-2007 at 17:11

Of course Hitler included all Aryan descendents. His aim were generally realistic, not World domination. quote Ovidius         Had gcle2003 responded saying such I'd have respected his views and accepted them as gospel given that I reckon he knows what he's talking about.       But the mischievious playful person that I am likes to tease you a little and hence this reply;

Edited by Spartakus - 20-Apr-2007 at 05:52

.

The holocaust and the regime's foreign policy are inextricably linked.  As they lost more territory, the genocide was accelerated, shipping Jews to camps inside German controlled territory just as they were evacuating the region from approaching Allied or Soviet troops.  It seems a bit pointless to waste resources on simply killing people but in that mindset the existence of Jews was directly correlated to Germany's performance in the war.  I'm not sure if Switzerland would've ever been invaded if they sheltered the Jews but I don't think that was a likely prospect anyway, if Germany kept winning, it would not have been expedient for them to protect a group which would draw the ire of the Nazis.  As it is Switzerland took pains to not irritate the Nazis byrefusing Jewish refugees and financially supporting the German industrial cartels.  

I'm not taking Mein Kampf as the be all and end all, I merely take Mein Kampf as a slight guidebook for some of the more 'grand themes' of Hitlers ideals.

As with all dictators Hitler meandered from his own 'philosophy'. One of the 'great successes' of Nazi ideology was its fluidity, without that fluidity and the ability to change it eve in different regions of Germany it would never have been such a strong force.

However, I stand by my argument. Hitler was too realistic in his aims to go for 'world domination', he never set out to do that. He wanted to erradicate his enemies, for sure, but the main aim was to strengthen and form the most powerful nation in the world - not take over the world. He was out to form a New Reich that would last a thousand years, set around the Pure Germanic people.

His foreign policy was always fairly balanced in its approach to nations that were either neutral or friendly to Hitler's aims. Hence why i believe that Hitler would probably have not gone out of his way to attack small nations that weren't part of his 'evil' list.

But at the end of the day, as with all history - nothing can be certain. The fluidity in the Nazi ideology was also down to how fickle Hitler's Character was. Just look at the 'final solution' and his attitude towards Jews - it changes massively during his period in power, there is clearly not one set methodic grandiose theory from beginning to end. Its always in motion and not always heading for the extreme.

Originally posted by Paul The Germans never needed to invade Switzerland, it was surrounded by German puppet regimes.   Switzerland relied on germany for 100% of its imports and exports as well as most of its coal.   If Germany closed the border Switzerland would have been in darkness in a week and anarchy in a fortnight.. Worse in winter.   Pretty much Germany said to Switzerland, jump and the Swiss said how high. Why would Germany want to invade a country like that. The whole reason they set up Vichy France is because it's much better to have a compliant self ruling entity than having the expense of militarily occupying somewhere.     As for Germany's policy with Jews. I don't think anything can even be gained from analsing that, it simply wasn't rational. In one place they try to exterminate them, in another they let them join the Nazi Party.

Paul is obviously best informed about the issue, he has put it quite well.


as in regards for Switzerland. people believe in myths such as "neutralicy". I will explain to you what that means: Sweden trading its iron oar to Germany, Sweden allowing German forces to march throguh their country.

Switzerland was no exception to this. a few years ago there was a topic in teh German newspapers: did Swiss help to lenghten the war? the issue was about Switzerland selling their AA guns to Nazi Germany towards the end of the war... so, especially for you Americans and British, if your grandpas plane was shot down during a bombign raid, it was most likely by a Swiss manufactured AA gun. well, Swiss did other thigns as well, fro example not accepting Jewish refugees. and actually Germany did nothing to prevent Jews leavign Germany before the war, the Nazis didn't liked Jews so they were glad of getting ridd of them without killign them.

so for all peole dreaming of something like neutralicy, in reality neutralicy means selling arms to both war-parties, nothign else...

Originally posted by Temujin people believe in myths such as "neutralicy". I will explain to you what that means: Sweden trading its iron oar to Germany, Sweden allowing German forces to march throguh their country.

That is a considerable overstatement.

On a case by case basis the German govt asked for concession. On a case by case basis Sweden granted or refused them, when they thought they could get away with it, which was painfully rare in the first years of the war.

That was the German policy towards smaller neutral states: Never make overt demands on subjection.
Incessantly ask for small concessions all the time. Nothing over the top. Nothing that might tempt some politician over there to get on top of a chair and start grand-standing about giving him "liberty or death" or such.
Keep asking for small and trivial concessions, but a lot of them. Their fear of becoming the next German victim will make them cave. And they won't get funny ideas about pissing national independance away over one of these one-on-one trivial demands. They would simply look like idiots if they did.
It was a very consumate diplomatic strategy and worked wonderfully.

One single battle ready division was transferred through Sweden by rail as a one off. There were no repeat performance. The Swedes dredged up enough pluck to refuse.
The big transport operation was unarmed German troops in locked carriages being transferred back and forth to Germany on leave. Bad enough, but nothing like German troops marching through Sweden. More like being hurridly clandestinely whisked through it in the dead of night with a very guilty conscience.

So no German troops ever marched through Sweden. Rode in passenger compartments in civilian style rather.

As for the iron ore, the Germans reciprocated by selling coal, which Sweden entirely lacks. This coal was then used for the armaments industries working full speed at getting the Swedish military into fit enough a state to have a hope of successfully telling the Germans to sod off. Which they eventually did.

And then Sweden started allowing US and British bombers to pass unmolested through Swedish air-space after their missions over Germany. Etcetera.

I'm sorry Temujin, were you just trivialising Sweden's role in the War?

Sweden was responsible for many acts in support of the allies - from helping with Bismarck, to aiding the Norweigan resistence, to supporting allied airmen, to saving Jews and was actually planning to join the War, to passing on intelligence gained from intercepts etc.

But yeah, it was clearly supportive of the German cause. I mean

As for the myth about Nazi's and Jews that you presented. I think you could do to investigate Nazi Jewish policy pre-1938. The Nazi's may not have 'done anything to prevent Jews from leaving', but also,  they didn't do anything to let Jews know they should leave - infact they did the opposite in many cases.

As for the Jews and Switzerland. They did actually allow Jews, just didn't allow ALL jews. It was normal immigration rules. Other nations were guilty of the Same.

Originally posted by Ovidius But yeah, it was clearly supportive of the German cause.

Do you mean out of necessity or preference?

Sweden was divided. Traditionally pro-German since the German unification. Not particularily happy about Nazism being staunchly democratic. Sweden was also for historical reasons considerably more concerned about possible Soviet/Russian agression than German.

The overriding Swedish foreign policy concern was finding enough of a guarantee against Soviet/Russian expansion. As long as Germany provided it, the German side was preferred. When the US became the best bet on containing the SU, Sweden dropped Germany.

Around 1944 or whatever the allies might ask of the Swedes, they were given, short of entrance into the war proper.

It's not rocket science. The one weird bit is that Sweden in all cases refused entering into a formal alliance.

Originally posted by Majkes Sorry, but believing in Hitler's speaches as a source of knowledge what Hitler was going to do is a little naive.

Majkes, I was not using it as a source of knowledge for what hitler was going to do, i was using it as a source for what hitler probably was not going to do.
The idea here is not that Hitlers Speeches are a footnote for his plans, but merely that they give an indication of his motives in the long run.

It is merely another piece of evidence that adds to the picture that "Hitler was not going to Take over the world", in an attempt to bring Hitler from Super James Bond Villain, back to being an evil, oppressive dictator. Thats all.

Well thats ridiculous, Sweden's neutrality was advantagous to the Allies. It was also one less country to invade and sort out.

Better to have a neutral Sweden than ANOTHER Nazi Protectorate. And lets face it, as a protectorate, its Jews would have been erradicated.

"put up a good resistence", Sweden? Come on.

So they should have had the BALLS and acted like an arrogant nation and see their status taken from them within a few days - with absolutely no gain for anyone. What a great move that would have been.

Better neutral than allied heh.