Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- From: "Stalin" <Stalin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:12:52 -0400
jif2000 said:
>Hitler did not invade Swizerland. Why do you suppose that was ?
Hitler did not invade Switzerland for several reasons, but fear of an
armed citizenry wasn't one of them. When Hitler mused aloud about
attacking the Swiss, he was dissuaded by the fact that Switzerland had an
ultra-modern, extremely efficient and highly disciplined army that was the
acknowledged master of that most difficult and specialized form of land
warfare: mountain fighting.
The Swiss defence (or rather, deterrence) ultimately consisted of an army.
The usual objection is that the Swiss military was (is) a citizen army, and
I don't disagree. But apart from the fact that all citizens were liable for
military service (and this was true of Nazi Germany and the USSR as well),
Switzerland's army was run along the same lines as any other. Boot camp
was as irksome as any other army, desertion was a capital offense,
officers had to be saluted and addressed as "sir", and privates had to
snap to attention when a sergeant walked past.
Hardly a bunch of rough-and-ready libertarians.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- From: Charles L
- Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- From: jif2000
- Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- References:
- Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- From: Stalin
- Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- From: jif2000
- Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- Prev by Date: Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- Next by Date: Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- Previous by thread: Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- Next by thread: Re: Are Guns Really a Friend of Freedom?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading