View Single Post
  #102  
Old 24.11.2011, 23:25
Wollishofener's Avatar
Wollishofener Wollishofener is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 18,978
Groaned at 332 Times in 257 Posts
Thanked 11,715 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Brutal killing sparks army gun debate

Quote:
View Post
Actually, you know well that there were a handful of factors - not least an ongoing war on several fronts or the fact that there were some Swiss sympathies on their side as well, which resulted in trades during WWII which have tarnished any kind of Swiss reputation well into present days..

Other than that, I quite enjoy following this discussion.. keep it going..
The continued trade with all countries (just as done by Portugal, Ireland, Turkey) was/is not a big problem. A big problem was/is that the commercial banks in Switzerland took over lots of Jewish money but when the storm was over invented dozens of bureaucratic hurdles to deny paying back. And that nobody took care of the matter. In Portugal, Antonio de Oliveira Salazar DID settle the problems with the Jews. Alright, as dictator he could simply give orders

Back to the weapons at home. When Switzerland went into war mobilisation in WWII, Switzerland was NOT under attack and General Guisan could determine the date and time. So that the news hit CH households deep at night, and so most soldiers could take the weapon out in the very early morning and move. Gave them an advantage of maybe two hours against having to pick up the weapon at the arsenal, but not more. AND, as you cannot expect a possible wannabe-invader to have the courtesy to attack at a convenient time, most soliders at the critical time would be 20 or 30 kms away from home, and the advantage would be zero. All this means that the "weapons-at-home-doctrine" is clearly outdated and no longer makes real sense. And to keep the weapon at home for most is NOT a "right" but a "duty", a duty most could de very well without.
Reply With Quote