Why was not attacked Switzerland?

In your opinion, why germans dont "touched" Switzerland?


Iama

There was no real reason to invade Switzerland from a strategic standpoint. Plus the terrain was so favorable to the defenders and if there ever was a "nation in arms" it was the Swiss.

Banking system og Switzerland can provide a lot of value to 3rd Reich pockets.

Iama

That banking system was even more useful for The Third Reich the way it was, in a neutral Switzerland. The high rank Germans created countless secret accounts for various purposes in the Swiss banks. These accounts were so valuable, that the Americans threatened Switzerland with invasion, after 1945, if the Swiss were not going to handle to them the amounts of the best known German accounts.

No returning to the basic question of the topic...
Germany waged that war for resources. Mostly for food (resulting in the wish to grab agricultural land), for space to allow the settle of German colonists, and for mineral resources.
Switzerland had nothing of these. They had, however, a quite good high tech industry, but that industry run at full power for the needs of The Third Reich.

Until the end of 1944, all the countries around Switzerland were under the full control of the Axis, so strategically Switzerland was not important.
The landscape, mentioned by tjk, was also an important factor, but not essential. There was a plan to invade Switzerland by Germany, but that remained on paper.

All I wrote here is quite well known.
Less known (but please do not start new topics!) is the fact that actually the German leadership, including Hitler, did not want to invade Holland in 1940, but the high brass of Luftwaffe considered Holland very good to have airfields against Great Britain. That because even the Germans were not so sure that France will fall so quickly and the French coast will become available so soon.

Also little known is the fact the invasion of Norway was a race against clock between Germany and the Allies (United Kingdom and France). The Allies made their own plans for the invasion of Norway, and they were about to start it one week after the invasion as we know it was started by the Germans. So, because it was done by the Germans, it was imperialistic etc. etc. etc. I am wandering how we would learn it at history in the public schools if Norway would be invaded by England and France. Of course, justified blah blah blah.

The main reason: the iron ore obtained in Sweden, and sold almost completely to Germany. So the Germans wanted to secure it, and the Allied wanted to cut the flow.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 15, 2005 07:51 am

No I don't think it would have been any more justified than the sinking of the French fleet or Syria. Churchill waged a total war. He made no morality discourse when the survival of Britain was at stake.

This post has been edited by Chandernagore on January 15, 2005 09:59 am

In one of the many ironies of the history, at the moment of total surrender - May 9th, 1945, the territory of the country who started the war, Germany, was under complete occupation by her enemies (if we do not count few little harbors along the shore of the Baltic Sea), but The Third Reich was still functioning in few other countries! In that moment (May 9th, 1945), there were still strong groups of operational forces of Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine or SS, but not in their native country!

These German forces controlled large areas in Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and Austria. Also in Croatia, where their last ally made a last stand even after Germany ceased to fight.

This is quite a rare situation in history.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 15, 2005 11:22 pm

That would be only a western chunk of the present Czech Republic, not all Czechoslovakia. Vienna had fallen and Austria had been overrun from both east and west. Tehre were still parts of Germany under German control. I had a map from National Geographic that showed the areas the Wehrmacht still occupied on 9 May.

That would be only a western chunk of the present Czech Republic, not all Czechoslovakia. Vienna had fallen and Austria had been overrun from both east and west. Tehre were still parts of Germany under German control. ...........

When I wrote: large areas in Norway, Denmark, Czechoslovakia and Austria, this is equal to:

large areas in Norway + large areas in Denmark + large areas in Czechoslovakia + large areas in Austria

I did not write "whole Czechoslovakia".

"Large area" is an arguable notion, but the term to compare was the rest of a given country.

Ex:"western chunk of the present Czech Republic" was a large area from Czechoslovakia.

I did not see the map you are writing about, or such other maps, but it is safe to say that at least a half of Denmark and a half of Norway were under German control in the moment of the total surrender: May 9th, 1945.