I've even heard it said that this kind of rock is edible, but I'd take such rumours with a pinch of salt. You can't eat rock!
In India the armed forces are highly respected in the society for the sacrifices they make...It is a voluntary service unlike in some other countries.
Yes it is true that India often has to defend her political territory... given the Geo-political situation around it.. so most often the volunteers do it out of sheer patriotism. For sure a proportion of the soldiers would have chosen the profession out of poverty or lack of opportunities. This does not take anything away from the others. the same holds good for any country and its army.
If Britain having sent forces to Afghanistan and Iraq is considered a gross mistake, it is not the error in judgment of the army, it is a failure of the government and the public establishments in preventing such decisions. Karl Marx had to say " Military justice is to Justice as Military music is to Music"..
So instead of browbeating which army is better, it s worth debating which forms of political and public institutions are better geared for creating checks and balances in governance. The people who have volunteered or have been conscripted do not have the choice of free will.. They have to obey orders...
The biggest Oxymoron is the peace keeping force... So do not try to hide behind that...
I still fail to understand why Swiss need even an army ( professional, semi-professional, temporary and so on). They will always remain neutral or will be chosen to be considered neutral... and come on.. it is not a big battlefield either...
I don't buy that. It's the same defence as 'just following orders'.
Yes, there may be a court martial for not following orders, but if the order troubles your conscience too much of course you can still decide to disobey.
Peacekeeping forces are mostly mandated by the United Nations and although there have been notable failures there have also been significant successes in stabilising situations, standing between opposing factions and protecting threatened civilian populations.
Many people consider the bombing of civilian targets in Belgrade and Novi Sad to have been war crimes. Other people do not.
Indeed, the declaration of an act of war as a "war crime" is often not made until several years after the incident in question. If it takes that long for the best lawyers in the world to decide if it's a war crime, how on earth is some poor bugger at the frontline supposed to know when he's in the middle of it?
Oh, for an ideal world...
Are you trying to defend the 'just following orders' response?
Because if you're a 19 year old Private in the army of a state that encourages the rounding up and murder of civilians, there isn't much, reasonably, that you can do about it.
There but for the grace of God, and all that...
A very important reason for the Germans NOT to invade was the treaty with Mussolini who would have got Wallis/Valais, Geneva and Vaud. And to have that a bit shaky "ally" so close to the German mainland was clearly NOT to the liking of the top brass in Berlin
The argument with the bank-accounts is rubbish. The Germans also had bank-accounts in Amsterdam, Luxemburg and Copenhagen, and did invade there in spite of that.
The other way round, if your question is whether Nazi-Germany could have invaded, the answer is a definite YES. They abstained due to risks difficult to calculate, and the danger to bind one or two army corps with not much advantage for Nazi-Germany. It is important to make it clear that the military leaders of Nazi-Germany were not emotional hotheads but very shrewd and careful planners.
Sure, there were "other" reasons like the fact that the narrowness of Switzerland would have been unpractical for the big German army corps.
And I do not quite understand the point about "farmers". At the time of WWII, the farmers had long ago become a below 30% minority in Switzerland, a country which in the second half of the 19th century had become one of the most industrialized countries in Europe. All those Italians who got into Switzerland for work between 1890 and 1930 worked in the industry, among them a mason with very strong leftist views
You mention large parts of Europe, but what about Norway ? just to give an example.
You mention North Africa. But the Axis powers only controlled Tunisia, the north of Libya and parts of western Egypt, and this in spite of enjoying the support of the local peoples who hoped to get rid of Britain and France with the help of the Germans. They of course had indirect control of the Maghreb via the Vichy régime of Marshal Pétain.
To say that there "was not much resistance" in Russia is the understatement of the decade
Getting back on topic, if the OP is bothered by how unprofessional the young Swiss solders he encountered were dressed, why not write to the Swiss Army and complain?
P.S. Regarding Switzerland and World War II, this is one rare time where Wikipedia is actually more informative than even Wollishofener. Switzerland may have been neutral during WWII, but that doesn't mean that they weren't uninvolved---or didn't suffer casualties. People interested in this subject might want to go there and take a look---it's a real eye-opener.