mxaxai wrote:

Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.

Or is that a tendency of the SU-34.

Vintage wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.

Or is that a tendency of the SU-34.

Whichever it is, the important thing is that they have one fewer of them today. According to Wiki, they started out with 131 and have lost at least 7. Who knows how many are actually operational.

Vintage wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.

Or is that a tendency of the SU-34.

I wonder if Mav and Goose got out okay.

You heard about the German Marder infantry fighting vehicles not being given to Ukraine because its 20 mm gun uses Swiss ammo that the Swiss government can block from sales to third countries, innit?

Apparently, that was a misunderstanding.

Now... the Swiss gubbermint is blocking the German anti-aircraft gun system called Gepard. Different cannon, same reason.

Vlad the Impaler must love Swiss nEuTrAliTy...

https://www.srf.ch/news/international/w ... er-ukraine

flyingturtle wrote:

You heard about the German Marder infantry fighting vehicles not being given to Ukraine because its 20 mm gun uses Swiss ammo that the Swiss government can block from sales to third countries, innit?

Apparently, that was a misunderstanding.

Now... the Swiss gubbermint is blocking the German anti-aircraft gun system called Gepard. Different cannon, same reason.

Vlad the Impaler must love Swiss nEuTrAliTy...

https://www.srf.ch/news/international/w ... er-ukraine

With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.

GDB wrote:

With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.

Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?

art wrote:

GDB wrote:

With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.

Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?

The difference is that during WW1 and WW2, European countries fought each other. In WW1, Switzerland was nearly torn apart, even among the Swiss military officers, who had different sympathies for France and Germany. I WW2, Switzerland put on a semblance of neutrality, even when in fact Switzerland served as Germany's banking hub and as a source of industrial metal products.

This time, the aggressor is clearly non-European while a country that wants to join Europe is attacked.

art wrote:

GDB wrote:

With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.

Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?

Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?

A lot of non NATO and non EU nations are helping Ukraine, including with military support. Finland and Sweden might be EU but they have long been neutral, which seems likely to change.
But as ever, the Swiss are blessed with geography, so I accept that their calculations for defence posture differs to those two, they were never under real threat from Nazi Germany either and knew it.

An additional factor is that Switzerland really, really needs the EU's goodwill because there are important Swiss-EU negotiations in the coming years. And after the Brexit fiasco, Brussels does not have time for half-hearted proposals. The previous treaties have made Switzerland a de facto EU member in certain regards - but those treaties are frozen in time, and it's hugely impractical to develop them further.

The new "Rahmenabkommen" would provide mechanisms so that Switzerland and the EU can settle new issues without lengthy negotiations. Switzerland would enjoy some direct influence on the EU's legislative processes.

GDB wrote:

art wrote:

GDB wrote:

With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.

Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?

Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?

A lot of non NATO and non EU nations are helping Ukraine, including with military support. Finland and Sweden might be EU but they have long been neutral, which seems likely to change.
But as ever, the Swiss are blessed with geography, so I accept that their calculations for defence posture differs to those two, they were never under real threat from Nazi Germany either and knew it.

Here's how see it. When a country sells arms and/or ammunition to another country they are essentially picking a side. The idea that they can be above the fray and be neutral while at the same time export war material is quite frankly ludicrous.

Do they think that it will never be used? What would have been their stance if the cold war had gone hot? Would they have said "Sorry Germany, since you are at war we can't sell you ammunition"?

Makes me wonder if any major powers will buy Swiss weapons in the future.

bt

In depth talk with Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute, aviation centric but with broader themes too, from 5.00;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HVpnWlJXkk&t=1075s

bikerthai wrote:

Makes me wonder if any major powers will buy Swiss weapons in the future.

bt

All western nations have such arms requirements, including the USA, officially they complained about Israel and Saudi use of weapons, so if folks still buy US weapons why would Swiss be any different, in their case, weapons quality versus politics would be the bigger draw as they are a small supplier.

True, if your intention is to use the arms yourself the it should not be a problem. You don't buy arms for its resale value.

bt

Hadn't known Australia too was supplying 155mm guns;
https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxsxD28W ... 3UEurt87ct

GDB wrote:

Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?

The Swiss neutrality didn't prevent them from providing Britain with Oerlikon AA guns and Hispano-Suiza aircraft guns.

FW200 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?

The Swiss neutrality didn't prevent them from providing Britain with Oerlikon AA guns and Hispano-Suiza aircraft guns.

Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them. Despite exporting a lot of time fuzes to the UK and the US during the war, our industry mostly served the German needs. After all, a "neutral" Switzerland was more valuable to the Nazis than an occupied one.

Do you fancy a piece of Su-34? Here is how to get one and help Ukraine at the same time:

Ukrainian volunteers have started offering a unique souvenir in exchange for donations - a piece of a skin from a shot down Russian Sukhoi Su-34 attack jet.

https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/30856-ukrainian-volunteers-offer-pieces-of-su-34-for-donations

Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.

Source: I Listened to the debate.

TheSonntag wrote:

Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.

Source: I Listened to the debate.

Well, that's not good...

johns624 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.

Source: I Listened to the debate.

Well, that's not good...

Personally, I feel that Ukraine will be using a majority of western military hardware soon anyway. Might as well start giving them first generation M-1 Abrams instead of decrepit Leopards.

Question…is there such thing as land based tomohawk missiles? I know the air launched ones were recently retired…were they scrapped?

Buckeyetech wrote:

Question…is there such thing as land based tomohawk missiles? I know the air launched ones were recently retired…were they scrapped?

Are you referring to the Nuclear tipped version??

Found this for the land based version.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... inf-treaty


bt

Germany arming Ukraine against Mother Russia!

We have indeed come a full circle.

johns624 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.

Source: I Listened to the debate.

Well, that's not good...

With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.

https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.

Source: I Listened to the debate.

Well, that's not good...

With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.

https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).

best regards
Thomas

And imagine just for writing this the authors would be jailed for this in Russia.

I see the French use Hellfire on their Tigers (ok Wiki says so), so would the solution be to buy those and update software etc?

flyingturtle wrote:

Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

ReverseFlow wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Well, that's not good...

With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.

https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).

best regards
Thomas

And imagine just for writing this the authors would be jailed for this in Russia.

I see the French use Hellfire on their Tigers (ok Wiki says so), so would the solution be to buy those and update software etc?

I think the current way of thinking is either buy something else and decommission the Tigers, or join the Spanisch and French with the Tiger 3 program, which would likely mean MHT missiles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_M ... ort%C3%A9e

That does make sense as the whole idea behind Tiger/PARS 3LR was to assign targets from behind cover and, if enough targets are present, pop up, ripple fire four of them and be behind cover and moving out after 4 seconds. Only difference is that todays computing power is suffient to do that reliably, 90s computing power was not. All without making the target aware by pointing lasers or radars on it. Reason for that was that during Excercises air defences, espechially the Gepard SPAAG, tended to kill helicopters before a HOT reached its target, and a hellfire is not that much faster. Back in those day the RM5 missile for Roland was just being develloped, it was assumed the Sovs would get something similar, and that would do the same to Hellfire armed helicopter (5 seconds flight to 8km, with an incoming Hellfire needing 3~4 times that long).

best regards
Thomas

kitplane01 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

This could sum up our shitty stance in many conflicts. We even tried to stay as "neutral" as possible when the UN sanctioned South Africa for, ya know... Apartheid.

flyingturtle wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

This could sum up our shitty stance in many conflicts. We even tried to stay as "neutral" as possible when the UN sanctioned South Africa for, ya know... Apartheid.

Neutrality should be defined as, not caring what anybody else does as long as I can keep making money from them and everybody else.

tommy1808 wrote:

With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.

https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).

According to the mentioned article the tests were conducted on request of the German Army in a hot climate zone (probably for the only scenarios for potential use of the missiles the Generals then could imagine were regions like Afghanistan, Syria or Mali etc.):

During the test with several mission scenarios, which took place at the Army's request in a climate zone with high temperatures and thus in the missile's upper operational range - and was therefore conducted at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico - there was a "high number of misses," the auditors write, citing internal Bundeswehr documentation of the test firings. Many missiles had "lost their assigned target after firing and selected a new target."

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-politik/rechnungshof-ruegt-raketenkauf-der-bundeswehr-fuer-420-mio-euro

Probably the infrared sensor of the missile hadn't been designed for such environments.

I'd think the performance of the missiles might be better in mild climate zones, so perhaps the weapon isn't that bad when used in central Europe. Would be the only possible area of engagement anyway after the termination of the out of area missions.

kitplane01 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

I'd make the argument that the potential value of a true neutral state is more valuable to terminating conflicts in the future than the potential war making potential of a small European state.

At some point, this war and all wars end. I think the recent pillorying of the Swiss for their neutrality when nearly every European state has benefited from it at some point in the last 125 years is classically short sighted and self-referential European posturing.

German gas diversification would have had a far higher deterrent effect, but the Germans refused.

FlapOperator wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

I'd make the argument that the potential value of a true neutral state is more valuable to terminating conflicts in the future than the potential war making potential of a small European state.

At some point, this war and all wars end. I think the recent pillorying of the Swiss for their neutrality when nearly every European state has benefited from it at some point in the last 125 years is classically short sighted and self-referential European posturing.

German gas diversification would have had a far higher deterrent effect, but the Germans refused.

That might make sense if Switzerland was the last possible neutral state. But I am sad to report there are an excess of neutral states. What we actually need is states that, when faced with unnecessary killing, are not neutral.

Actually, when faced with the unneeded slaughter of innocents, I'd rather there were no neutral states. This seems super obvious to me.

kitplane01 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

I'd make the argument that the potential value of a true neutral state is more valuable to terminating conflicts in the future than the potential war making potential of a small European state.

At some point, this war and all wars end. I think the recent pillorying of the Swiss for their neutrality when nearly every European state has benefited from it at some point in the last 125 years is classically short sighted and self-referential European posturing.

German gas diversification would have had a far higher deterrent effect, but the Germans refused.

That might make sense if Switzerland was the last possible neutral state. But I am sad to report there are an excess of neutral states. What we actually need is states that, when faced with unnecessary killing, are not neutral.

Actually, when faced with the unneeded slaughter of innocents, I'd rather there were no neutral states. This seems super obvious to me.

I agree with kitplane01. What does Switzerland have to offer? We don't have any weight in Moscow. And a neutral stance is too expensive just for saying "Well, you guys can debate in Geneva." Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains. In certain situations, everybody will refuse negotiations.

kitplane01 wrote:

Actually, when faced with the unneeded slaughter of innocents, I'd rather there were no neutral states. This seems super obvious to me.

This isn't the unneeded slaughter of innocents. Its happening in eastern DRC, western China and a dozen other places on the planet.

In the meantime, neutral states and organizations like the ICRC do necessary work. The ICRC delivered all sorts of medical aid to the Taliban. They were right to do so, then.

flyingturtle wrote:

Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains.

Maybe not. Bill Browder thinks that Putin will not let himself be embarassed and will escalate the war.. Video here (warning, possibly behind a paywall):
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/10 ... e-conflict

flyingturtle wrote:

I agree with kitplane01. What does Switzerland have to offer? We don't have any weight in Moscow. And a neutral stance is too expensive just for saying "Well, you guys can debate in Geneva." Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains. In certain situations, everybody will refuse negotiations.

Places like Geneva do matter. Organizations like the ICRC do matter. Lesotho or Bhutan just isn't ready for prime time as the new neutral state.

We can't argue for a rules based international order on one hand, and ignore the hundreds of years of data on what such an order means.

This war is going to end in some negotiation. WWII in Asia ended in some negotiation. The Euros aren't going to march on Moscow. There is not going to be a unilateral end to Russian combat operations.

HowardDGA wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains.

Maybe not. Bill Browder thinks that Putin will not let himself be embarassed and will escalate the war.. Video here (warning, possibly behind a paywall):
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/10 ... e-conflict

The Russians might reach a culmination point where increasingly it doesn't matter what Putin wants. HItler was raving about counterattacks at the end. The Japanese army was willing to sacrifice the entire nation to stop the Americans. It might be within Putin's power to use WMD in an attempt to get the Ukrainians to capitulate, but even then, that's coming with some mammoth costs.

At some point there will be that acknowledgement of reality in Moscow, and they will have to analyse their situation. The Russian Defence establishment might be broken for a generation or more.

FlapOperator wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

I agree with kitplane01. What does Switzerland have to offer? We don't have any weight in Moscow. And a neutral stance is too expensive just for saying "Well, you guys can debate in Geneva." Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains. In certain situations, everybody will refuse negotiations.

Places like Geneva do matter. Organizations like the ICRC do matter. Lesotho or Bhutan just isn't ready for prime time as the new neutral state.

We can't argue for a rules based international order on one hand, and ignore the hundreds of years of data on what such an order means.

The ICRC can exist without Switzerland. The ICRC can exist without ignoring the slaughter of zillions of people.

What hundreds of years tells us is that ignoring evil might be good for the states without morals, it's not good for the world as a whole. If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision. But failing to join others is the most mild punishment of the slaughter of zillions .. that's just a wrong decision.

FlapOperator wrote:

This war is going to end in some negotiation. WWII in Asia ended in some negotiation. The Euros aren't going to march on Moscow. There is not going to be a unilateral end to Russian combat operations.

And those negotiations would end better if the nations of the world were more united in opposing the slaughter of a zillion people.

An appreciation of evolutionary ethics and psychology provides important insights. Note, evolutionary ethics ain't very nice much of the time.

The crew that took out a KA-52 with an ATGM had a second video from that engagement posted, showing a second KA-52 getting hit as well, this time with a hit to the cockpit section by a STUGNA-P ATGM again. https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 9230086155

On March 17, the Pentagon announced that in their aid package they were sending 100 switchblade 300s to Ukraine. A bit later we found out that they were Switchblade 300 systems, each of which included 10 drones, so the March 17th shipment was for 1,000 S300s.

Recently the Pentagon announced another aid package and this one includes "300 Switchblade kamikaze drones".
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/h ... to-ukraine

Does anybody know if it is 300 drones, or are they "drone systems"? If they are drone systems, that means that Ukraine is receiving 4,000 Switchblade drones in total; that's kind of a big deal IMO. These things have a six mile range.

TB-2’s destroyed 2 Raptor patrol boats:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1521026579555569670

JonesNL wrote:

TB-2’s destroyed 2 Raptor patrol boats:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1521026579555569670

It seems that according to Wiki (I know, I know...) there are only 17-24 built and 3-4 in the Black Sea. So that would mean 1-2 in the Black Sea unless there were more to start with or more destroyed

Interestingly they apparently have a Caterpillar engine. So mark those down as 'dual use' and no exports to Russia!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor- ... atrol_boat

https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/ ... 94378.html

ReverseFlow wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

TB-2’s destroyed 2 Raptor patrol boats:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1521026579555569670

It seems that according to Wiki (I know, I know...) there are only 17-24 built and 3-4 in the Black Sea. So that would mean 1-2 in the Black Sea unless there were more to start with or more destroyed

Interestingly they apparently have a Caterpillar engine. So mark those down as 'dual use' and no exports to Russia!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor- ... atrol_boat

https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/ ... 94378.html

Wiki was certainly right in that they can be confused for the Swedish C90, I prefer ‘rip-off’.

kitplane01 wrote:

If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.

No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.

And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.

Not allowing to being dragged into foreign adversities, imho still is a model, that makes the world more peaceful. If everybody would do it, it would limit the scope of conflicts. If there will ever be a world war again (and there will), the neutral states will not be responsible for it.

And, don't forget, even as neutral state Switzerland is participating on all the sanctions of the EU...

rheinwaldner wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.

No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.

And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.

I'm sorry but that's crap. The reason Switzerland is neutral in 2022 is because that's what Swiss voters want, not some constraint imposed 207 years ago.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Not allowing to being dragged into foreign adversities, imho still is a model, that makes the world more peaceful. If everybody would do it, it would limit the scope of conflicts. If there will ever be a world war again (and there will), the neutral states will not be responsible for it.

Sure. And sometimes refusing to fight makes the world more peaceful. Other times it means that good loses and evil wins because people who should have known better allowed evil to win. The correct method is to consider each case on it's merits. But automatic, unthinking, never-get-involved-even-if-that-allows-slaughter neutrality is just not right. Nations have a positive duty to do good and reduce evil.

rheinwaldner wrote:

And, don't forget, even as neutral state Switzerland is participating on all the sanctions of the EU...

Good. And they should.

kitplane01 wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.

No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.

And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.

I'm sorry but that's crap. The reason Switzerland is neutral in 2022 is because that's what Swiss voters want, not some constraint imposed 207 years ago.

As no one ever saw the need to overrule (or confirm) neutrality by a public vote, the rationale from 1815 (which in fact roots in events which happened centuries earlier) is valid until today. It served Switzerland well. You can educate yourself here:
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/en/documents/publications/SchweizerischeAussenpolitik/neutralitaet-schweiz_EN.pdf

kitplane01 wrote:

The correct method is to consider each case on it's merits. But automatic, unthinking, never-get-involved-even-if-that-allows-slaughter neutrality is just not right. Nations have a positive duty to do good and reduce evil.

Sure. And the Swiss say, we reduce evil by not letting Swiss troops fight for another nation. That's not so different to the position the other European countries have regarding the Ukraine conflict.

Of course the swiss public opinion sides with the Ukranians very strongly, voices who mixed up evil and good turned very silent, even a Bundesrat was heftily attacked by Russian foreign ministry for making not so "balanced" (in their view) statements.

rheinwaldner wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.

And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.

I'm sorry but that's crap. The reason Switzerland is neutral in 2022 is because that's what Swiss voters want, not some constraint imposed 207 years ago.

As no one ever saw the need to overrule (or confirm) neutrality by a public vote, the rationale from 1815 (which in fact roots in events which happened centuries earlier) is valid until today. It served Switzerland well. You can educate yourself here:
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/en/documents/publications/SchweizerischeAussenpolitik/neutralitaet-schweiz_EN.pdf

I feel like you're being overly pedantic.

If Swiss voters wanted to be un-neutral they would. If Swiss voters wanted to join NATO that would happen, regardless of the Congress of Vienna. This seems super-obvious.

flyingturtle wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.

No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.

Switzerland was really hated by the United States during the latter 1940ies and early 1950ies.

"Hated" is too strong. More realistic would be diplomatic tensions. But the mood already changed in 1946 by this event and later by this event. Toni Spinas (one of the Swiss mountaineers, who was brought to the crash site to retrieve the deads) personally sat on my grand parents kitchen table and told the story.

flyingturtle wrote:

Because we lazy asses had only about 400 military dead during WW2 (almost all of them due to drownings, avalanches and other accidents), but we did not open a front against Germany in 1943 or 1944, relieving the troops who fought, suffered and died for our liberty.

Because the Swiss liberty never was taken away, nobody had to die to give the Swiss liberty back.

Also, the Swiss army was strong only in defense (would it not be nice, if all armies would?). And they were absolutely not lazy in putting up a believable defense. Unlike the other neutral nations in central Europe, which were overran unhindered, the price for occupation of Switzerland was too high for the Axis to bother.

rheinwaldner wrote:

"Hated" is too strong. More realistic would be diplomatic tensions. But the mood already changed in 1946 by this event and later by this event. Toni Spinas (one of the Swiss mountaineers, who was brought to the crash site to retrieve the deads) personally sat on my grand parents kitchen table and told the story.

So we got out of these diplomatic tensions the cheap way.

rheinwaldner wrote:

Because the Swiss liberty never was taken away, nobody had to die to give the Swiss liberty back.

Also, the Swiss army was strong only in defense (would it not be nice, if all armies would?). And they were absolutely not lazy in putting up a believable defense. Unlike the other neutral nations in central Europe, which were overran unhindered, the price for occupation of Switzerland was too high for the Axis to bother.

This is wrong on several levels.

Both Switzerland and the Allies had the incredible luck of enjoying Hitler's stupidity. If he had not attacked the Soviet Union (and provoked it into turning Eastern Germany into ruins), Nazi Germany would still exist today. The costs to liberate Europe would have been too high for the Brits, Canadians and the Americans. There would be an uneasy peace between Great Britain and a Germany that controls the entire continental Europe. By 1950, after consolidating the territorial gains and ramping up defenses, the usefulness of a neutral Switzerland would have expired, and it would have been promptly invaded, or a pragmatic Switzerland would have joined the German empire like Austria did.

Also, you can overcome any military defenses, no matter how strong they are. Apart from freshwater, Switzerland does not have any meaningful natural resources. Scalpels for Swiss doctors? Machinery for Swiss farmers? Good luck finding the metal ores. An annexation of Switzerland was just not a priority for Hitler, because of the war in the East.

It's not a fantasy that Switzerland would have been turned into Nazi Switzerland if it were not for Hitler's strategic mistakes. It was his mistakes that allowed the Allies to fight on European soil, defeat the Nazi threat, and thus preserve our future. And we are thanking Europe by staying nEuTrAl, instead of contributing to Europe by joining EU and NATO.

In short, we're dipshit freeloaders.