Talk:Reduit

message: Are the stories of the catapult-launched planes really a myth ? I though that the Swiss FA/18 were a naval version because they needed to have catapult-launching capabilities ? Rama 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They really are a myth. The Swiss F/A-18 are the very same aircraft the US Navy uses, but in Switzerland, there are no catapults, even if they still have tailhooks. Some air bases are equipped with arrestor wires, though - if there are technical problems with the landing gear, an "carrier landing" is performed. Several Swiss army pilots have the needed licences to operate from US aircraft carriers (possibly because of an educational exchange between the two armies). Additionally, the myth about military aicraft catapult-startet from cavern seems to root in the cold war, when Switzerland didn't have a Navy-type aircraft. --Keimzelle 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports 

message: "To the younger generations it became clear that it was political and economic cooperation with Germany, and not the army, which saved the country from an invasion."
This is extremely simplistic and biased.  I do not think this belongs in an encyclopedia.  The Bergier commission made no conclusions about why Hitler did not invade.  Regardless of what "younger generations" think, almost all historians agree that the military deterrent was real and that both it and economic cooperation were necessary for Switzerland to survive.  To omit this fact and then add talk about crazy conservatives wearing t-shirts presents a very slanted view.  Either add this fact or delete the whole section.
Also I suggest you read the actually reduit strategy.  The reduit was used as propaganda, but it is also a valid military strategy.  The point was not to win.  The point was to make it obvious to Hitler exactly what the cost of an invasion would be (high), and to present limited economic cooperation that would make any invasion not worthwhile.  Combined with distractions (the invasion of normandy and the attack on russia), Switzerland was able to survive.  The belief that Hitler would have somehow left Switzerland alone even if the Swiss Army did not exist is ludicrous.  The actual extent of cooperation with and benefit to the Third Reich was not nearly as great as it would have been if Switzerland had been occupied.  (tens of thousands of jews would probably have been sent to camps, and the allies would probably have had to spend blood and money rooting the Nazis out of the alps).  Swiss leaders saw Neville Chamberlain's "piece of paper" from Hitler.  They were not completely naive.
If you do not think the cost of invading a mountainous country is high, see Afghanistan, or the French armies in the French Alps.  Terrain can hugely amplify the effectiveness of an army:  Finland vs. Russia, Thermopylae.  the list goes on and on.
  
Bababoef 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political influence 

message: some military airfields are located adjacent to caverns, where aircraft and maintenance personnel can be sheltered; and the airfield of Meiringen is an example of this
Can't see the caverns. Any chance of specifying where they would be? Englischy (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Airport caverns

message: I reverted the edit to this page that changed the word "Reduit" to the French spelling "Réduit". The edit changed not only the wording in the text but the citations to the English spellings in the OED. Changing the spelling in the citations was totally out of order. Secondly the page was moved to to an article title of Réduit with the comment "Talk:Reduit to Talk:Réduit over redirect: International English" yet if any one book represents international English if is the Oxford Dictionary of English and it spell the word "Reduit" so I have reversed the bold move and would expect any future move to go through a WP:RM process. -- PBS (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted move and edit of English word "Reduit" to the French spelling "Réduit" 

message: The article uses both the words "country" and "county."  Is this a typo?  Or do reduits apply to both large-scale (countries) as well as small-scale (counties)?  Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  country, county, or both?