I rather doubt anyone who advocates a Swiss Neutrality like position for the U.S. understands in any way what that entails. First off you would have mandatory conscription and militia service for all 18 year old males. Deferment till after college is possible, but service still is mandatory at some point. Then you need to issue full auto weapons to EVERY MILITIA MEMBER to be kept in their homes. This idea would make plenty of people here blow a major gasket. The U.S. probably wouldn't have to fortify the country like the Swiss due owing to the oceans we have for protection, but still, it's just not realistic.

 

As for scenarios in which the Swiss get clobbered, yes it could happen, but probably wouldn't be worth the cost. The Nazis would not have bothered as the Swiss were good suppliers of various things they needed, and you don't kill the goose who's willing to trade you golden eggs at a good price. The Soviets might have considered such a thing based on principle (what other excuse can be found for Afghanistan- there was certainly no potential profit there), but it would have been very costly again.

 

Switzerland is set up like a fortress. A serious enough big country could take it, but good god, it would not be cheap. 

 

buzzard

How about Norway? Up to the time that it was invaded, other parties had been doing the fighting.

 

But probably the most significant reason was that Switzerland could not be accessed directly by allied military forces and therefore was circumstantially, as opposed to formally, allied to Germany. IIRC for example, Switzerland allowed German troop trains to use its railways while going to and from Italy.

 

Spain had only just witnessed the end of the Spanish Civil War in 1939, where the Fascist Franco won out with the help of German and Italian assistance.  The Liberal Democracies of Europe allowing the Fascists to arm Franco was described (I forget by who) as the worst case of appeasement of the 20th Century.

 

Franco was very much on the side of Hitler and Mussolini, however through Hitler launching the war somewhat early, Spain was in no condition to participate.  Rather ironically, through sitting on the bench so to speak, Franco was the only Fascist in Europe who survived the war.

Another difficulty in invading: Invading Switzerland is a uphill battle - litteraly.

What if you start in the middle?

 

On a more realistic note, I think on the army-technology.com site, there were some very interesting pictures of Swiss heavy artillery mounted in WWII style concrete bunkers in mountain dug-outs.  Such static defences are often considered obsolete in concurrent manoeuvre warfare, but in a small country where the lay of the land channels ones forces, I imagine they are rather useful.

Well: Neutrality demands special conditions. One of them being insignificance. Another difficulty in invading: Invading Switzerland is a uphill battle - litteraly.

the germans didnt need to invade switzerland and wouldn't have because thats where they stored all of their gold and other money just in case they needed to go into hiding this isn't including hitler

Perhaps someone who knows more about Switzerland and their various trade relationships with other countries could shed light on this, but I'm thinking that Swiss-style neutrality for the USA would be impractical unless the USA becomes more or less completely self-sufficient with regards to producing everything we need here at home. As it stands now, much of our manufacturing is done in otehr countries, and a good portion of our energy (oil) comes from abroad - the latter of which is a big reason for our entanglements in the Middle East in the past 60 years.

 

Swiss neutrality was ensured because, as others have mentioned, it is an extremely mountainous region with a heavily armed national militia. Moreover, what natural resources does Switzerland have that other countries covet? Belgium sought to maintain neutrality prior to both World Wars, but they unfortunately occupy a flat, easily penetrated geographic region which happens to be sandwiched between two larger, belligerent countries. If say - Italy and Germany were the two main antagonists of the 19th century leading up to WW1, and if Switzerland was only as mountainous as say - Luxembourg, then perhaps Switzerland would have suffered the kind of fate that Belgium did.

Switzerland was born in war and expanded through war of course.

 

Switzerland became famous in some respects by having farmers who were willing to contract out as soldiers for foreign exchange in between fall harvest and spring planting.

 

Switzerland's main sources of income have shifted over the centuries. But Switzerland isn't self contained economically. So neither would, I believe, the US need to be in order to be neutral.

 

The whole thought I have about it is that the US's strong suite in the early 20th century was business more than war. By promoting, as much as possible, peaceable relations among nations and doing it particularly by example, world economic progress could have fared better.

By the way, if the Allies had pushed the Germans back to the Swiss border, would the Swiss have joined with the Germans and foought against the Allies?

That happened in August September 1944.  Gen Dever Army Group of the 1st French Army  US 7th Army chased the Germans out of southern France.  The Swiss posted some extra border guards and took some German stragglers into custody.  They also established liasion with the Allied armys to resolve problems, like drunken soldiers wandering onto the border.

 

As the war ran out diplomatic persuasion from the Allied governments caused the Swiss to reduce cooperation and trade with Germany, tho neither was completely halted.