A Map of WWII Europe - Something to ponder...

Please watch the video below from the classic "World at War" series produced by the BBC. Pay special attention to the map of Europe at time=3:49.

Do you notice something odd about the untouched area in the center of the black area defining Nazi territory? Given the fanatical efforts (almost 1 million men, 2,093 aircraft, 2,758 tanks) lost during Operation Barbarossa alone) by the Nazis - to take on anyone in their way - why was the country in the middle spared? Perhaps Hitler didn't want to destroy the factories making Swiss Army Knives?

I've often heard that bankers are behind wars. These claims are usually swept aside as the ramblings of conspiracy theorists. For that reason I will not consider Swiss banking as a factor in keeping the area in the center of the black map "neutral." But I can't help but wonder what blessed this precious plot of land. Are there powers in the world so ruthless that war is simply a for-profit-exercise where feeding sons and daughters into meat-grinders is a "cost of doing business?"
Interesting article
Reuters - Swiss Banks under scrutiny
Update March 14, 2009 Swiss Banks to release info
Banks attacked in Greece
UPDATE APRIL 9, 2009 HALLIBURTON + Swiss Bank account = Bribe?
UPDATE APRIL 11, 2009 Goldman Sachs goes after critical blogger
UPDATE MAY 11, 2009 (CLICK) Bank robberies reversed


  1. The Swiss were neutral during the war. As far as the bankers, they financed both sides of the conflict. Its territory being the Alps would have had tied up needed German troops and equipment for a long time. Germany already had to many front's to defend.

    Little Finland's terrain is mountainous and because of this they held back a major Soviet army from getting anywhere into Finland. The same would have happened to the Germans if they attacked the Swiss.

  2. ...Little Finland eventually gave up 10% of their territory to the Russians in this conflict. As far as what would have happened to the Germans attacking the Swiss is speculation.

  3. Switzerland's official policy is to fight to the last Swiss, including men women and children, and destroy the country if defeated. It is the policy that lower level officers will disobey any order to surrender, and that enlisted men will shoot any officer who orders surrender. Switzerland officially does not have chemical and nuclear weapons but will certainly use them if invaded and facing defeat.
    Sweden has a similar policy and was also spared invasion by the Nazis and the communists. Both Sweden and Switzerland allowed Hitler to transit their countries. Dishonorable? Perhaps, but no more so than the US and Britain cooperating with Stalin.

  4. I am not passing judgement.
    The Japanese fought to the "last man" on islands in the Pacific and were defeated.

  5. Today, it's the Armies of Wall Street laying waste and sweeping away everything in its path on Main Street, but leaving the Big Boys on Market Street not only untouched, but the beneficiaries of trillions of dollars of American taxpayer money.

  6. That's because it's ok to nuke japs. Nuking white people is a different matter. At least to the moral direction those people had.

  7. It is my hope that one day the world will finally wake up & see that WAR is a game played by politicians, Industry & Bankers, for their benefit only. They call all the shots & it is peasants like me & you, who will spill all the blood. Remember the golden rule.... " those with all the gold, make all the rules"... This quote came from one of the most powerful banking cartels known to mankind - the House of Rothschild

  8. Posting from Switzerland - so I may be a bit biased there... But:

    Switzerland is a direct democracy, where the people can turn over any decision the government makes, and where people can force the government to do things it didn't want to do.
    We're totally unwilling to give this up, that's what's keeping us out of the EU, and it's also what would make us fight to the extremes if someone tried to conquer us.

    The Swiss army is a militia that doesn't really have a central command, so they couldn't just conquer one place and expect not to run into resistance everywhere else in the country.

    Of course Germany knows that, and as long as Hitler could be sure Switzerland would not try to interfere with his plans, there was no point to risk everything just to get that untouched area.

    The people at large almost never want a war - so it's also pretty clear why Switzerland chose not to declare war in Germany as long as Germany left it alone. Also, keep in mind that even people living next to a concentration camp often didn't know the extent of the crimes committed there until after the war - information flow wasn't anywhere near what it is today. I'm pretty sure the Swiss of the time knew Hitler was a bad guy, but they probably didn't know just how bad.

    The banks also play into it -- Hitler and his cronies worldwide, including Prescott Bush, did put parts of their money into Swiss banks so they could be sure it would be safe, regardless of the outcome of the war.

    The banks should have done a better job at freezing the Nazis' assets, and they haven't learned much since (the practice of numbered accounts not directly tied to a name has finally been outlawed a while back, but that isn't enough) - but that's hardly the country's fault. A lot of people here would love to see the bankers arrested, but at the same time, we do realize that such a move would probably cause serious problems to the country's economy.

  9. Regarding the nuking of "Japs" - Iwo, Okinawa, Tarawa etc... - all were taken with lots of blood, not nukes.

  10. Swiss commenter - thank you for participating.
    As an American citizen in 2009 America I don't pretend to hold the moral high ground. I think Americans need to look at these things so we can compare and contrast present and past with the hope of improving the future. We also have to be more mature in our reasoning when looking at the forces leading us all into conflict.

  11. It had nothing to do with banking.

    A Nazi invasion of Switzerland during any of the above periods would have faced the following: The Swiss border forces would have fought to the death and would have been eliminated. But the bridges and roads were charged with explosives and would be destroyed, as would the Gotthard and Simplon tunnels on the Alpine routes to Italy.

    The Swiss forces were concentrated in the Alpine Réduit. Panzers and the Luftwaffe could not operate in these steep mountains. Wehrmacht infantry would have been subjected to murderous fire from artillery hidden in mountain sides. Swiss forces could hold out indefinitely in the Alps.

    Any German occupation of parts of Switzerland would have had extreme costs in blood. Unlike any country Germany occupied, every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Swiss government and military ordered that no surrender would take place, and any report of a surrender was to be regarded as enemy propaganda. The Swiss would have waged a partisan war unequaled in European history. While many Swiss would have been killed, the invaders would have faced a Swiss sniper behind every tree and every rock.

    Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."

  12. >>Switzerland's official policy is to fight to the last Swiss, including men women and children, and destroy the country if defeated. It is the policy that lower level officers will disobey any order to surrender, and that enlisted men will shoot any officer who orders surrender. Switzerland officially does not have chemical and nuclear weapons but will certainly use them if invaded and facing defeat.

    Prove that statement, Anon.

    It is much more likely that the combatants at war knew where their funding was coming from, i.e., Switzerland, rather than the absurd idea that the Germans were scare of the fighting Swiss. Come on.

    As far as money, do you want to bite the hand that feeds you? Remember, the Swiss banks were sued a few years back for holding Nazi gold.


  13. Zacharia said.
    General Henry Guisan, Commander-in-Chief of the Swiss Army and a true Nationalist would have been ready for Hitlers Army. Hitler was aware that he may lose too many of his soldiers when entering Switzerland whom he had compared with a "Stachelschwein" or "Hedgehog", but may have entered it on his return. There were lower ranking Officers in the Swiss Army that would have loved to give into Hitlers request since Switzerland had it's Nazi sympathizers and traitors as well. Thanks to Gen. Henry Guisan, the Swiss people were spared the occupation of their homeland by Hitlers Army.

  14. Barbarossa, Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin - none demonstrate a concern for casualties on either side by Hitler. They demonstrate the contrary.

  15. American industrialists were Nazi sympathizers:


    It's a common fact that Prescott Bush, Dubya's grandfather, was caught funeling billions to the Nazi regime in 1942.

  16. Hitler ended paratroop operations after the successful invasion of Crete precisely because he was concerned about German casualties (very high in the Crete campaign).

  17. canaris told hitler that switzerland was an unpregnable mountain fortress, which was a purposeful lie.
    canaris also told franco that hilter would not desire spain joining the axis ...
    hitler was mislead by the then head of the civil (i think) intelligence agency.

  18. It wouldn't have anything to do with the Nazi's having their money there, could it? Nah!!!

  19. why would you be so stupid and rob your own bank?

  20. The German High Command had a conversation very much like this one I would amagine. And they, like most of the commentors here, would have reached two basic conclusions:

    1. that Switzerland would be very problematic to conquer and subjugate; and

    2. that Switzerland, already providing the nazi's with the means to move 'their' money through international economies, decided that it just wasn't worth the cost simply to change a regime, that perhaps not friendly, was not particularily unfriendly, either.

  21. Having lived in Switzerland, it was clear to me that the Swiss are the most organised people on the planet, and the most free in the sense that their system of government places individuals at the top and all the layers of government below. They still have all the bidges and tunnels mined, there are tank traps in every valley road ready to be placed at an instant and the mountains are full of ammunition dumps and military facilities. Every Swiss man has a rifle and must attend a rifle range at least once a year to keep up their skills. They are fiercely proud. The story I was told is that the policy is "aggressive neutrality", they would not provoke anyone, but should anyone attack, they would not relent. Seeing their special forces in action during the one hijack attempt at Zurich airport makes it clear they are ruthlessly efficient. I don't think any sensible army would try to attack them in their mountain strongholds, simply impossible to overcome. They still have donkey troops to get over the high mountain passes and even still have carrier pidgeons equiped with electronic storage devices for carrying messages between valleys. Back in the '90s they were investigating bouncing radio off the micrometeors as a way to communicate between the valleys. No, Hitler would have been stupid to attack. The banking system certainly had a role, particularly as a medium of transfer of wealth between the waring nations, but the "aggressive neutrality" was enough to prevent the invasion.

  22. Was Hitler stupid to attack Russia without preparing his troops for winter combat?
    Was England's attempt via Chamberlain to talk peace with Hitler successful?
    Was America's "aggressive neutrality" enough to prevent Hitler from declaring war on the United States?
    Did every fighting Russian in Stalingrad have a weapon? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPSh-41)
    Were the Swiss the only nationality "fiercely proud" enough to repel the Axis forces?

  23. The comment directly above was in response to commenter Feb25 5:55

  24. Hello Folks,
    The truth is evident in the Papal Swiss relationship. Who's army Guards the pope if not the swiss guard? Who were the advisers to Hitlers SS if not the Roman Catholic Jesuits?
    Open your eyes people! and wake up. Hitler was conquering the world for the papacy.

  25. What could have Hitler possibly have won by invading Switzerland? No new frontiers since Switzerland is land locked. No new alliances since Switzerland practiced a foreign policy of neutrality and strict independence. Resources? Perhaps but at what cost! In the other hand declaring war on Switzerland would have removed one of the very few back doors to world finances, trade, information, espionage and negotiations with the enemy, albeit failed negotiations which in different circumstances could have shorten the war by at least a year and spared many lives. Looking at a map and noticing a small area in its center bearing a different color than its surroundings is not a very good explanation for anything.

  26. Thanks for commenting anonymous above - please refer to previous comments - good question.

  27. To previous to above commenter:
    "Open your eyes people! and wake up. Hitler was conquering the world for the papacy."

    JR - All theories can be posted here - readers are smart enough to determine the validity of each on their own.

    Thanks for participating.

  28. See poll left column bottom of this page

  29. As it turns out the Concentration Camps weren't Concentration Camps at all but were Prisoner of War Work Camps and the Prisoners of War were Ashkenazi Bolshevik jews that had been kicked out of Russia for committing genocide there. They invaded Germany and took it over. Hitler came along and rid Germany of the Bolshevik Communists and attempted to free Germany and reestablish Europe to some rational forms of government and at the same time punish Europe for settling in tight with the Bolshevik Communist jews and their usury crushing of the populations of Europe. Germany lost and usuray settled back in and was then exported to the USA and the remainder of the as yet unconquered by zionists. If the true world map were laid out today, it was show only tiny tiny parcels of land as yet uncontrolled by the zionist jew.

  30. Switzerland was more useful to the Nazis as an independent nation. Simple as that. The Bank of International Settlements, based in Basel, was a major conduit for German capital into and out of Germany. A little-known fact is that Germany also gained valuable industrial intelligence by exploiting a loophole in US law. For example, a US munitions plant had to file extensive documentation with its insurer, down to architects' plans and the location of fire extinguishers. The US insurer passed this information on to the Swiss firm which "re-insured" the US insurer. From there, it went to the Swiss firm's German affiliate, thence to German military intelligence. Another example: in order to get insurance, any ship leaving the US for Europe, 1939-1941, had to file its cargo manifest, destination, etc., with its insurer, which information was transmitted to the re-insurer in Switzerland. The Germans had access therefore to up-to-the-minute shipping information in this way. Had Germany conquered Switzerland, they would have lost access to this information. ... After 1943, when it became clear the war was going to be lost, Swiss banks became important intermediaries for German money headed for S. America. .... Swiss pride notwithstanding, the Wehrmacht could have overrun little Switzerland in a few weeks had Hitler had such an idiotic notion. Modern war is not about controlling territory; it is about controlling economic relations.

  31. As usual the comments are the best part... America is far from finished - no, the best is yet to come. As the citizenry collectively focuses on the problems at hand, the problems will diminish as they wither under the power of the people.

    We are CITIZENS - NOT consumers. Citizenship means responsibility, accountability - ethics - doing the right thing...not "what is right"

    I thank each commenter for participating - I wish more would... the FIRST amendment -

  32. Switzerland remembers it's violent morbidity during past wars of conquest. It is the land of the bank, and the chocolate bar. Mountains are everywhere, and glacier lakes. Hitler kept his money there. So did Churchill, and Stalin, and the US elite.
    There was no reason to attack it.

    Don't get me wrong, I consider the Swiss to be Eurotrash, but then again, I don't cotton much to the doctrine of money.

  33. Switzerland was very much neutral in the sense that they dared to oppose Allied positions. They were on Germany's side in the Danzig question and they knew about the pressure of the internationalists. There were also many sympathizers with German politics and positions in Switzerland. They could as well have ended like Island with US occupation and influence forever. Btw, it was the US that bombed a Swiss city.

    Furthermore, there were never any Germans plans to attack Switzerland or Sweden. War was declared by Britain and France on Germany. Germany did not act against Britain and France until it became necessary to prevent their war preparations. Germany invaded Poland because it held German territory occupied after WWI. The borders with Polen were never recognised by ANY German government before and even in the first years after the war. The occupied territories by Poland like Danzig and the corridor had no Polish population. Poland dispelled and jailed more ethnic Germans and also Jews before WWII than Germans expelled Jews, yet the Allies supported them. The Jews declared war on Germany in 1933. Although Jews were banned from German citizenship, Hitler worked on a zionist solution that would have established a Jewish homeland that was not Palastine, in particular Madagascar.

  34. Hitler tested Swiss air defences. They lost several fighters in less than 4 minuets after crossing into Swiss air space. They decided against invasion.

  35. Napoleon once aid if you want to understand war, simply look at a map. The map at 3:50 explains alot. If you want to understand why the next war will be fought in Iran, simply look at a map. Plus, the Ashkenazi Bolshevik Jews need this territory as a stepping stone to eventually invading Russia.

  36. Finland did give up some beautifull land, and although we like to celebrate victory we really celebrate survival. Finland is not a mountainous territory, we hardly have any mountains at all, especially along the Russian border... But 80% of the country is forest, and it happened to be an especially cold winter. If not for Russian under estimates, favourable weather, and all the amphetamine and heroin Hitler gave us we would have never made it.
    I read an article claiming Iran to be the hardest land to grab (though I'm sure tiny Swiss is hard too) The US army has run hundreds of simulations and lost all that did not contain hundreds of micro nukes (they are not that small)

  37. Regarding the nuking of "Japs" - Iwo, Okinawa, Tarawa etc... - all were taken with lots of blood, not nukes.

    only because the a-bombs weren't ready yet no other reason. better question is why did they stop?Why not Tokyo? In todays bush/chainey america to understant thr thinking you only have to ask "What would Hittler have done?" and you can get close to reading the minds of the ruelers.

  38. I have decided to take a proper moniker and cease to be anonymous. I wrote the comment beginning with "What could have Hitler possibly have won by invading Switzerland?" May 11, 2009 4:30 PM

    I am not sure Finland qualifies as neutral country. Sweden scantly did, coming close to succumb to German pressure when Hitler requested and obtained the right of passage of whole Wehrmacht armed divisions in their way to Norway. Sweden conceded when the troops agreed to travel as normal "civilian" passengers in civilian clothing. Arrangement that prompted Stalin to request similar rights to supply by land the new Soviet base in Finland following the end of the Winter War. By the way the background to this war lies in the Russian and Finnish Civil War in 1918 when the Finnish Whites with German help pushed the Finnish border to artillery reach of Leningrad. At the end of 1939 Finland refused to move back and the Winter War ensued. The initial failure of the campaign has little to do with Russian military readiness and a lot to do with political perceptions. Stalin wanting to keep a low military profile, not to alarm any one, in Berlin, London or Washington.

  39. I feel compelled to defend a Swiss friend of mine - somebody above beat up on the Swiss - I want to make sure my silence doesn't signal agreement.

    It seems that on an individual level - there are few problems between individuals from different countries - the problems that I come into contact with as an American seem to arise from our respective governments.

  40. Jacinto: Regarding YOUR statement above: Soviets vs. Finland :
    "The initial failure of the campaign has little to do with Russian military readiness and a lot to do with political perceptions. "
    PERHAPS you will reconsider your position:
    See the World at War "Barbarossa" episode - listen to the interview about the recently purged Soviet army going into Finland - "90% Generals murdered- 80% of its colonels, and well over half of its corp commanders had been put to death at Stalin's purge"
    Interview of Grigori Tokaty:
    "Every single commander of a military district was eliminated"
    "Every single commander of an Army division was eliminated"
    Every single commander of a regiment, with some exceptions yeah, also eliminated.

    Go to this link:
    Go to time = 6:40

  41. Jack Rabbit, thanks for your comment about the Soviet campaign in Finland. I don't use TV as a source to shape my history knowledge. In fact I consider TV to be a rather crude form of propaganda, with a clear goal of shaping public opinion about the past, the present and the future.

    Was the Red Army weaken by the purges? Perhaps, but just consider a fact, one very simple fact, Lieutenant General Georgi Zhukov defeated in 1939 an invading Japanese Army of nearly 60,000 troops. A swift victory indeed, using coordinated attacks of air power and armor against the "mighty" imperial Japanese Army which two years later would defeat Great Britain, the Netherlands, and take the Philippines from the mighty McArthur. Not exactly the performance of an army without officers.

    Stalin and the USSR leadership was always concerned about the danger of an alliance between fascism and capitalism against the USSR. There were plenty of reasons to be aware of such a danger from the very early days of the war: the two main powers that declared war on Germany 3 September 1939 did not move a finger to come to the rescue of Poland. Her Army fought valiantly for time so that help could materialize. It did not and Poland was destroyed. Albeit after inflicting 56,000 casualties to Germany. Three months later when the Winter War between the USSR and Finland is raging the French and British are planing a rush campaign to come to the rescue of Finland, and to fight Russia. The plan did not come to fruition because the Germans invaded Norway and the Franco-British landed force in Narvick had to be evacuated.

    Stalin stopped the Nazi hordes from advancing beyond the Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad line. Hitler and his general knew at the end of 1941 his
    war against Russia was lost. From there on the fight is for time hoping the West will come around and join him against, what he thought was the common: enemy Russia. Stalin never gave neither party enough confidence that a Soviet victory could be possible. Churchill delayed the opening of the "second front" in Europe to relieve pressure from the Eastern front. "Torch" the allied landing on Tunisia, was a joke, a failure that nearly ended in disaster.
    Today the Russians are saying, their president, Dmitry Medvedev is saying that the West is rewriting the history of Russia, that Russia's role in defeating fascism was secondary and that the real fighter for freedom, the real genius of military strategy was Wiston Churchill. This message, I am told is repeated on TV often. Dmitry Medvedev is right to complain and to warn the Russian people against it. Fascism is not dead.

  42. Jacinto,

    So I am to disregard the interview from the video I linked showing someone who was there supporting my point. Am I to understand that you are disregarding the interview I linked because it is presented in video format?

  43. Jacinto,
    I was specifically referring to your statement:
    ". I don't use TV as a source to shape my history knowledge. In fact I consider TV to be a rather crude form of propaganda, with a clear goal of shaping public opinion about the past, the present and the future. "

    ...in the comment above

    What sense does it make to remove from consideration an entire pipeline of propaganda? It must be taken into consideration whether it is true or not - either way it has its influence.

    I presented an interview of a man directly contradicting your statement and you disregard it because it is in video format? What if I presented his exact words recorded in a book? Would that be more valuable than the video interview.

    Look at the people interviewed in the video series. I believe Adolf Galland was interviewed about fighter tactics. Should I disregard that interview as well because it is presented in video format?

  44. Well, it is prety obvious the history of the world for the most part was not recorded by TV which is nothing more than a very fast mean of mass communications in the hands of, well you can make your guess. In itself TV does not make the information that it conveys true or false. Quoting an interview of Gregory Tokaty, his Georgian name after defection ot the West, does not make the information more true or more false. Tokaty can say and opine as much as he likes as well as the producers of the World at War.

    What I am saying and I repeat it is that Joseph Stalin was very mindful of a coalition of powerful forces, namely capitalism and fascism against him. And that to avoid that coalition to take shape he opted to give the impression that the USSR's military strenght was not a threat to anyone. Adolf Hitler believed so when he invaded 22 June 1941, he thought by December Moscow would have been in his hands and that the Soviet Government would have collapsed, the people of Russia free of communism would have been ready to embrace fascism. But Adolf Hitler and some of his generals were wrong, very wrong on their appraisal of Soviet military strenght, regardless of what Tokati may or not say on TV.

    When it comes to history I rather read, preferably books, and leave TV out of my life. I also doubt confessed anti Soviet dissenters and defectors like Tokaty can be a good source of unbiased and genuine information about the Soviet Union. They tend to say what their friends like to hear. It is an old problem.

  45. Jacinto,

    I read books too.

    I can't afford to leave anything out of the equation.

    I will say, however, that in the Anzio section of that World at War series there is another interview of a group of Brit vets talking about Anzio. An enemy soldier comes up to talk, German, who is from somewhere near Emden. Anyway, the German supposedly told them that Germany would be beaten down until it joined forces with America and England to fight Russia. Perhaps this is a good illustration of the propaganda inserted into everything we see.

    Books are just as bad I hate to say.

  46. Again, books, the printed word perse are not the problem, the author constructs or relates his views, perceptions, intentions with whatever levels of honesty the circumstances may dictate. But paper is traceable and its veracity can to some degree be verified. Soviet archives can be kept secret another 60 years, the CIA may destroy crucial documents. Fake documents passing as irrefutable originals are known to exist. And yet, somehow some historians armed with a life time dedication have been able to lift the fog of confusion and deceit planted by the enemies of the truth, for for those whom control the truth control the situation, whom control knowledge retains the power. The question to be asked is in the name of what shall the power be sought? Fascism, capitalism or socialism?

  47. Jacinto,

    A video of a Stuka bombing a town. Disregard?
    A video of an accused person's interrogation: Disregard?
    A video of a politician's campaign speech: Disregard?
    A video of Nixon saying "I'm not a crook" Disregard?
    A book by Bill O'Reilly: The No Spin Zone : Regard?


  48. Jacinto:

    Thank you for the dialog!

  49. Jacinto hit the nail right on the head:

    " The question to be asked is in the name of what shall the power be sought? Fascism, capitalism or socialism?"

  50. And what about "reality TV" where people are asked to "live" an event, usually a dangerous one, for the sake of legitimacy and credibility? If TV has to create "reality" by fake means what does it do to REALITY itself?

  51. Oh man that's a scary thought..

  52. I've tried to address that in "Fake Truth for our own Good" also on this blog

  53. For more information on paphos car hire Shami Goats at
    the exhibition. The Turkish Republic of Northern paphos car hire.
    One way to do Face Time calls, and that's just fine by us; odds are you've already got headphones or earbuds
    you prefer for music anyway, and if you're a member. From my experience and as a thriving town too.

    my webpage car rent paphos cyprus

  54. The closeness of paphos car hire, with its entry in the EU, unlike in America, because of its beauty
    and history. Traffic lights are generally respected, within Naples though, stopping at a placed you desire to suit your pre-planned,
    budget conscious transportation needs, just book Paphos Car Hire.

    Also visit my weblog: paphos car rental review


Only by exercising YOUR freedom of speech shall you keep it. Comment now - I can handle it....

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.