Rishon Rishon

That happens in the lives of individuals as well. I suppose that its not only important to learn from the past, we have to make sure we learn the right lesson.

What about the Russians, French, Poles, Yugoslavs, etc. who also stood up to the Russians. Sure, the French, Poles and Yugoslavs dropped out, but they got beat pretty bad in the war. Nothing like the Russians, but then... The Eastern front in Russia made the Polish bloodbath look like a frickin' picnic.

Not so sure: I think they learned a different lesson.

not so sure, the Russians (Soviets) learned that military conquest, not the strength of their argument, was a less time-consuming way of spreading their "paradise".

It's amazing that the French and others were so incapable of defending themselves militarily that, in a proverbial heartbeat, their Resistance had to work in the shadows. The USSR had guns, distance and weather on their side. Italy, of course, abetted the Nazis.

The Swiss are the real curios. They could defend themselves just fine, and thus were never attacked by German troops, but they refused to join in the liberation of their fellow Europeans. Many applaud Switzerland's steadfast neutrality, but I have nothing but contempt for that kill-whoever-you-want-just-leave-us-out-of-it rot.

And just what were the Swiss going to do? Remember Austria.... same thing would have happened to the Swiss.

And the Nazi's didn't attack Switzerland because they couldn't take them. They just had no reason to go after them. Itlay on the South, Germany on the North and France (after it fell) on the East. In all but a formal way the Nazi's were in charge of Switzerland. They didn't need to waste troops on it. Where was Switzerland going to go? Hawaii? Sometimes the best policy is look harmless and hope you don't get stepped on.

And the French... what happened was simple. The depression sapped their stength. They had the largest army in Europe at the time. Just no money to pay for supplies for it. The Nazi's made up for the same problems by being, well...Nazi's.

The French also thought they were going to use the same tactics as in the last war, cause after all they won WW1. They **knew** what to do in order to win. The Germans had to think of new ways to conduct war, especially since at the time she had fewer troops on the ground, and thus the Blitzkrig was born.

The US did not save anyone, nor the british. They simply contributed. People should remember that the major losses wheren't US, by far not. They where Russians and Chineses (although we may argue about the real influence the chinese front had in the winning of the war), and other nationalities, although maybe not bearing the main losses, sufferent en important number of casualties.

We can also argue about where the US were when the germans attacked the french. They entered the war a bit late. Indeed, they forgot to honour the Versailles Treaty that their President had signed in their name. Indeed, I find it was the UK and allies (Canada, South Africa, ANZAC, ...) that really saved democraty (or whatever it was) by their stubborn resistance and the population collaboration.

I am indeed tired of this centric opinion of "we US arrived and saved everyone". We still hear it today after the 11 September 2001. This does not mean their *important* role should be minimized, simply put into context.

Concerning the swiss, I can tell you that the germans did not controll them. And if they did not invade them it was simply because the cost would have been too high for little benefice. It is proved that the swiss did help the Allies far more that the Axis. In the word of Churchill: "Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction. . . . She has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defence among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side."

Indeed, not only the swiss where ready for a long resistance, they where also the only critical neutral voice agains the axis, and they saved far more jewish than the US (who refused ships) although they did not have enough food for their own population.

Of course they did not help the Allies. What would you expect the swiss to do? Attack Germany? Their strength lied in their neutrality, where, through among others the red cross, served far better the cause of the Allies that they would have done by entering the war. And do not forgot that the allied bombers worked with swiss products. Indeed, the precision bombing aiming machine was swiss made ;-)

I've heard too much swiss-bashing (specially in the 90's) from people without knowledge of the country nor their history. Although everything they did was not pretty (judish gold, ...) their role was important and they deserve recognition and gratitude.

Finally, the concept of Blitzkrieg is british :-)
Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart was an early advocate of mechanized warfare, and his thinking had a profound effect upon the German high command prior to World War II. He also evolved a number of infantry tactics and training methods that were adopted by the British army. The problem was that the germans where the only one who listed to him and applied his principles.

The WWII is a complicated moment in time, where nothing is as simple at it seems. The 3 major alignements (communists, fascists and "democraties") where in an unstable alliance where each countries interests where often far from each other. It is difficult to separate people between "good" and "bad", as some still do today (Bush, for instance...).

By the way... in case someone wonders, I'm not swiss :-)