[linksnapzz]

The last person to successfully invade Switzerland was... Napoleon?

Likewise, while it may not be to your taste, Afghanistan's polity has spent the last 200 years stubbornly being Afghan, to the surprise and annoyance of the British, Russians, Americans, etc.

[EdwardCoffin]

Who has tried since? I understood that in WW2 for instance it was their strict policy of neutrality that kept them from invasion, and the fact that Germany thought it was more beneficial to have them as a neutral rather than occupied country.

[linksnapzz]

Keeping Zurich industrialists on their side was essential to helping supply German war efforts-that's how Dehomag laundered its purchases of Hollerith cards from IBM, and I think how GM Europe's part-ownership of Ethyl Inc.facilitated getting TEL to the Luftwaffe.

In addition to losing all that, it would be a costly and drawn-out war against an entrenched enemy on hideously unsuitable terrain. The desire was absolutely there, Hitler hated Swiss Germans, but cooler heads prevailed, apparently.

[EdwardCoffin]

They didn't try though, that's the point. You have to try in order to succeed or fail. I mean, the USA famously had a plan to invade Canada - but they never did.

[linksnapzz]

Industrial-age warfare has a different scale of opportunity costs associated with it than, say, agreeing to have dinner at the new Thai place down the street, to see if it is any good.

Invading someplace just to discover if it is or isn't invade-able hasn't been a workable strategy since Franciso Pizzaro tried it on Atahualpa.

[EdwardCoffin]

My point is that you said:

> The last person to successfully invade Switzerland was... Napoleon

While I understand the idea of deterrence, your statement certainly implies the existence of unsuccessful attempts, but I don't think any attempts have even been made since.

Edit: all I am saying is that if you'd originally said "the last person to invade Switzerland ..." we wouldn't be having this exchange.

[linksnapzz]

Yes, my use of the infinitive "to invade" was in the sense of the consummation of the invasive act itself; and not contingent upon the invader's assessment of the success or failure of their primary military objective, hence the adverb in the middle.

Now that we have that out of the way, IIRC there was an Austrian army mountaineering patrol on a winter training mission that got lost on the border near Liechtenstein. They ended up on a hillside in Grisons, just over the border, where a shepherd informed them that they were in the wrong country.

After some debate about proceeding further down the valley in the hope of finding a bar or restaurant, they decided that it was too cold and wet, so they marched back the way they came && called for a helicopter to pick them up.

There you go, a relatively recent but unsuccessful invasion of Switzerland.

[moate]

Point of order on both nations: They also have protective geography that helps a great deal. The Afghani culture and being very well armed does contribute though, but IDK that we can say it's the sole reason.

Switzerland has been a neutral state during the entirety of modern aerial warfare era, so I'm going to put that less on the guns and more on the "why would I want to attack Switzerland?" attitude of the last ~100 years.

[HideousKojima]

Belgium was neutral in WW1 but that didn't stop the Germans from invading it im order to try and circle around the French frontline. Switzerland being a mountainous hellhole (from a military perspective) is probably a big part of why, but it's also perfect terrain for an armed insurgency.

[nickthemagicman]

Switzerland has the loosest gun laws in the world next to America.

They have laws REQUIRING able bodied males have a gun.

Also, The Swedes inteternally had a coup to overthrow the monarchy.

I can't imagine the monarchy turned over it's power due to love or because someone asked nicely.

I imagine there's a significant possibility the threat of weapons may have been present.