Talk:Swiss Armed Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

military training is not viewed as a temporary horror, but as a continuing set of enjoyable patriotic activities.

The question here is BY WHOM?

The result is a safer soldier with more skills

NPOV?

However, Swiss mothers still teach their children that freedom grows from the guns of free men.

Who wrote this?

-- Stw 23:18, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have reworked the Discussion bit. I hope it is better now. I have removed the following only because I am unable to verify it:

Swiss doctrine is "Total Resistance." The Swiss plan to destroy their country totally rather than give it to an invader. Surrender is legally impossible.

In addition, I have removed the following, because I do not think it belongs into an article on the military.

New federal gun control legislation was passed in 1997. Restrictive licensing is required for pistols and machine-guns, but the law has numerous exceptions for semiautomatic rifles of the types used by the military and shooting clubs. Arms remain relatively easy to obtain.

Maybe there is someone out there who has served the Swiss military who can help out? Kokiri 22:04, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's much better now, thanks a lot. I made some minor changes to it. I have served in the Swiss army, but I didn't really enjoy it, so I don't have a big knowledge. What I didn't write in the article was the fact that there exists two kinds of civilian service: "Zivildienst" and "Zivilschutz", one is for the men who are not fit enough for the military service, the other is, as stated in the article, for those who are fit enough but don't want to kill people :-). For both of them you'll have to pay 2% of your income. But don't ask me which one is which! -- Stw 18:23, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I know that ;-) Zivildienst is for those with a conscience, Zivilschutz for those not fit enough. Kokiri 22:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's kind of stupid and insultant calling those who serve in the swiss army conscienceless in general. And If, as you say yourself you don't know very much about it, you better shut up than play a moral instance.

Goniometer --85.0.170.70 22:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss doctrine is "Total Resistance." The Swiss plan to destroy their country totally rather than give it to an invader. Surrender is legally impossible.

The illegality of surrender was pointed out in the old Constitution; it seems to have been removed during the new revision.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.92.9.58 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 12 August 2005

A little controversy about ranks?[edit]

A Rank Controversy?

Cyrill, if you check out general ranks, all Western Armies use the star system even if the actual insignia worn is different. In this system, a brigadier general (called Brigadier in the British, Swiss and French armies) is a one-star general, a major general (Divisionaer in the Swiss Army) a two-star, a lieutenant general (Korpskommandant in the Swiss Army) a three-star, and a full general (and yes, that's exactly what they are called officially, 'full generals' :))a four-star general. Cyrill, I've spent 12 years so far in the Swiss Army, graduated number two in my general staff and command college class and have been on several exchange programs to other armies, so believe me when I say I know what I am talking about. Don't take my word for it, however; checking with any Army headquarters or asking any higher officer of any Western Army (plus the Russian) will easily confirm this. So please stop using the 'four-edelweiss general' bit; it's just plain ridiculous. :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeltaSigma (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 August 2005

Hell, if you insist. Though I would not advise calling a French Général de brigade a bridadier. He might not take it kindly... I always thought the "star" designation was a bit of a colloquial thing. I can hardly see me saluting a brigadier with "général une étoile". But apparently you are the expert, so I will revert to stars. CyrilleDunant 10:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, note that I am in fact still unhappy about the "four star general" thing. Yes, of course the comparative rank (in terms of the structure of command under him) is that of a US four star general, and Brigadiers, Divisonnaires and Commandants de Corps are comparatively 1, 2 and 3 star generals. Still, the wording is unfortunate as it suggests that suddenly you get those as "generals". Which they cannot be (unless they somehow also happen to be ambassadors to korea). Because there is a single "général" (it is not a question of rank but of title). The others are collectively "officiers généraux" -- but again, not "generals".
This is what I was trying to highlight : the meaning of "general" here corresponds to a unique rank (the general officer with four edelweiss), but also a unique function (chief of the army in time of war). This is in fact different from a four-star general which is not necessarily the head of staff. It is, in fact equivalent to OF-10. it would be equivalent to a "five-star" general...— Preceding unsigned comment added by CyrilleDunant (talk • contribs) 10:47, 28 August 2005
well, the ranks are not expressed in terms of "stars" in Switzerland. The Swiss expression "General" corresponds to NATO OF-9, The Brigadier corresponds to OF-6. OF-6 are called 'one-star Generals' in other armies, but not in Switzerland. So the 'i.e. 4-stars' is really mistaken here. The Swiss expression is "Gerenral", the international comparison is OF-9, and the four stars don't enter into it either way. dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

removed false statement[edit]

The statement that was removed by me contains two false or misleading statements: first there is not a fully automatic assault rifle (or any other kind of rifle/gun) in EVERY household in Switzerland, but merely in those in which there is one (or several) active serving member(s) of the swiss military, or the (few) one who chose, asked and where deemed as fit, to retain such a weapon in there homes after retirement from armed service. Second, even though Switzerland does not have a staggeringly high crime rate, claiming that in Switzerland "some time periods have no crime rate at all" is totatally disingenuous because "some time periods" is not defined. If we talk minutes or hours or even in some case days, that statement might be true but formulated as it is, it gives the false impression that Switzerland is some kind of a crime ridden Shangri-la. Oh yes, and there aren't any official statistics about murders committed with army issued guns in Switzerland (my guess about why this is so is as good as yours). Moumine 22:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

There's a link in this section to the AAD, a new SAS type division, but the disambiguation page it links to has nothing about Switzerland. Whoever put the link on there, could you please fix the link, remove it, or create a new page for it as you see fit? Archtemplar 17:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mirage[edit]

Mirage (Fighter and Reconaisseurs) are not in service anymore in the swiss airforce. Goniometer

Anybody can edit this article, Just provide a source. If you don't know how to do the footnotes, just add the source within the text of the article itself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Special Forces - Some help please[edit]

Hi, I was reading the article, and the author mentions something about the AAD, Switzerland's new SAS-type Special Forces unit. However, I cannot find any reference to this on Google, or even on Wikipedia. Could someone help me out please? Thanks. --Tom Black 11:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is the link to their official homepage; the German wikipedia contains a small article. 193.74.151.194 09:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it referred to as SAS-type? That is not necessary, it impies that the SAS helped set it ups like the NZSAS or Australian SASR.--Conor Fallon (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia[edit]

Is the Swiss doctrine similar to that of the Military of Yugoslavia (Tito-era)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.203.200.2 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 28 June 2006

section popular culture[edit]

"only officers are allowed to carry the knife with the opener"

As a conscript I've never been told that I'm not allowed to carry a wine opener. Maybe it stands somewhere in the "Réglement de Service", but I doubt it. 128.178.26.187 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't. I checked. It's also not in the "Bekleidungsvorschriften" or in the "Brevier". However, the one with the wine opener is coloquially called "Offiziersmesser" (="Officers knives"), which might have given rise to this misconception. ;-) Every ADA (Member of the Swiss Army) regardles of rank is issued the same knive wihout wine opener, but may privatly purchase and use in service any knive which fits the regulations, includinge those with wine opener, usb stick or nose hair scissor.... `[User:Halbwolf|Halbwolf] Halbwolf (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein[edit]

OK, I can't find anything about it, but is Switzerland obligated by treaty to provide military defense services for Liechtenstein? The CIA World Fact book (see this link) indicates so, but I can't find much else about it. Streltzer 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 25 years old and I spent my whole life in Switerland - but I never heard something of "Switzerland defending Liechtenstein"; and I'm sure that no citizen of Liechtenstein does serve in any army. The CIA people might have been confused, that in fact, there is a customs union treaty between Switzerland and Liechtenstein (there's no real border); and some of the laws the Swiss parliament enacts are used in Liechtenstein too – for just 34'000 inhabitants, nobody creates a bureau for motor vehicle safety control, for example. The Liechtenstein article states:
The Army was disbanded already in 1868, out of financial considerations.
Until the First World War, Liechtenstein was an ally of Austria-Hungary. In the Second World War, Liechtenstein declared itself neutral, but such a small country could not have been defended either way against the German army.--Keimzelle 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Switzerland is under no such obligation. The prince would in principle be authorized to order a mobilization in times of crisis, but this is of course hypothetical. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Military[edit]

I am confused as the difference between regular Swiss conscripts and the reserves. When is does a soldier in the militia become a reservist? I would appriciate any information in this matter, thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.48.170 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 26 December 2006

A soldier in the militia becomes a reservist as soon as he has passed a certain amount of days in the army. For the time being (2007), these are 300 days for a private (150 days basic training, and 7 annual repetition courses, each about 20 days/year), 430 days for a sergeant (longer basic training, 7 repetition courses, each about 24 days/year), and 600 days for a lieutenant (still longer basic trainings and repetition courses). Higher ranked officers stay in duty as and when required. So, privates and sergeants serve in active duty at least until they are 27 years old, (but in practice rather until 30, since courses can be postponed for important job, health or family reasons) and stay in the reserve until the age of 34. Until 1994, as a relict of the cold war, one had to serve up to the age of 45 and was kept in the reserve until 55 (I'm not totally sure about these last two numbers, but it was much more than nowadays). Being a reservist, one still has to care for the rifle, the uniform and other equipment, but has not to go to the training courses anymore. --CHamul 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of Liechtenstein[edit]

On March 1, 2007, Switzerland accidentally invaded the neighbouring nation of Liechtenstein. This happened when a Swiss Army unit took a wrong turn during a training exercise. [1] Both countries immediately dismissed the incident despite the 170 armed Swiss troops which marched across the border into the neighboring country. The incident will most likely be forgotten in history, but it is the only example of aggression from either European country in modern history.

Where in this article should this little tidbit be mantioned, if at all? CeeWhy2 11:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that counts as an invasion, they didn't make a declaration of war, and they were there by accident. Looks more like a wrong turn than an invasion. All-though it is pretty interesting, it doesn't seem worthy of entry in the article. PBGuardsman 03:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active troops number[edit]

Two articles: List of countries by number of active troops and List of countries by size of armed forces put the number of active troops in Switzerland at 3,000-4,000 only, as compared to 220,000 in this article. Can someone verify and correct? --Vsion 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the swiss army is conscription based (which gives the 200'000 number, 180'000 active and 20000 reserve), there is a small cadre of professional personal, a few thousand strong). Traditionally, the professionals fell in three categorys: Professional Officers (either employed in training positions or staff positions) Professional NonComs (employed in training positions) Festungswachtkorps (Fortress Guard Corps, mainting and guarding fixed installations, other security related tasks).

Those two numbers are often confused, as the professional arm constitutes the permanently standing part of the army, while the conscripts man the regular units and are only called up 3-4 weeks per year.

Nik

Suicide/murder[edit]

Should be noted that the tradition of swiss soldiers bringing their guns home has caused an alarming amount of suicides and murders... which is increasing. Should this be considered a military or civilian matter?

-G

This should be considered as a fairy tale. This point is discussed in switzerland right now and the dispute is strongly political. But an alarming amount of […] murders is far from being realistic – Switzerland is one of the safiest countries in the world. The amount of sucides is more controversial, but no official statistics do exist. For a comparison: More than 60% of all Swiss men between 20 and 30 have received an semi-automatic rifle, a total of 220'000 armed men, plus an unknown number of veterans who can keep their rifle, if they want (last year, about 20% of the decruited men kept their rifle). On a total population of 7,415 million, there were 17 murders and 61 manslaughters as per penal law in the year 2005 (Source: “Taschenstatistik der Schweiz 2007”, Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft [2]). This corespondents to a rate of 0,23 murders and 0,82 manslaughters per 100'000 persons, which is, however, amazingly few when compared to 6 murders per 100'000 persons for the U.S. in 2005 [3]. In my personal opinion, the whole discussion is just one big exaggeration. Furthermore it is obvious that the debate has been launched by socialists and other left-winged forces, the same who want to abolish conscripition or even the whole Swiss Army. Don't be afraid, come and visit Switzerland in you holidays ;-) --CHamul 07:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: of this 17 murders and 61 manslaugthers, most were NOT comited with the personal arms of Swiss Military personel.Once or twice a year such a case gains notority, and is all over the media, but mostly I wouldn't say the firearms or the army is ´responsible´ for the murder.
Last year we had a case, where a complete nutcase shot a girl after completing its military service. Both sides had their field day: the left-wingers and anti-army-groups blamed the army and Swiss weapon law. On the other hand, the right-wingers and anti-imigration-groups focused more on the nationality of the recruit, since he was Chilenian by descent. If the case weren't so sad and so discraseful to our army, you could think it was a joke or something: all this "Swiss with Chilenian Roots" on all the headlines...In the end the newspapers didn't know any more if they are against the army or against immigrations and tried to spin the story both ways. (Or that's at least my opinion).Halbwolf23:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of serving soldiers[edit]

I'm 34 and still in the force as simple soldier until December. 34 is the age limit. Nmacpherson 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Afghanistan?![edit]

[4] 205.228.74.13 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody who wants to can add info to this article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Age 26?[edit]

The maximum age is not 26, it's 34 as far as i know. furhter i have never heard so far, that italian speaking soldiers are overproportionally forced to do a career. the statement, that many prefer the rank of a seargant (to an officer) because of the closer contact to the troops is highly questionable. mostly, it's because seargants just don't want to serve a longer term (soldier: 300 days, seargant: 450 days, (first) lieutnant: 600 days) or because they simply failed the selective procedure for officers school. the fact that should be stressed more regarding military careers, is that hardly anyone nowadays volunteers for higher officer ranks (such as major, lieutnant-colonel, colonel). even already to be a captain brings a lot of administrative work outside the repetition courses, which makes service more or less a hobby one has to follow all year long. only 20/30 years ago, military career and being at least a lieutnant was essential for the private career, especially in higher management in branches as banking and insurance (which are kind of important in switzerland ;-)). the armed forces (especially the officer schools) used to be the most important networking platform in swiss economy. this is not like that anymore, even though many companies still accept military training in a leading rank as a meaningful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.74.176.157 (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if you're past 26 you're not required to report to do army service. For example, if you obtain Swiss nationality at age 27, you're not liable to serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.105.34.15 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World War I[edit]

"Wille subsequently was put in command of the second complete mobilization, and Switzerland escaped invasion in the course of World War I." This implies that Wille's leadership is what prevented an invasion. But would either side have gained a strategic advantage by invading? Belgium was the obvious route for a German invasion of France, since the French-German border was short and rugged, and the goal was Paris. Did Germany actually consider the Swiss route? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan[edit]

Why is there no mention of their involvement in Afghanistan? I thought i heard they were sent out there with German troops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.216.73 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because there wasn't any. It wasn't even discussed in the swiss parlament at anytime in the past and would have been a clear breach of the swiss military doctrine. The only thing the swiss army is participating in a bigger scale is the KFOR and they also have a bunch of military observers around the world.--2A02:120B:2C74:CBA0:E48D:2ADD:7292:C19E (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, anybody can add well-sourced info to this article, Feel free. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures/Illutstrations[edit]

The article and photographs have undoubtedly improved, but nevertheless I'm wondering if there is any need for KKdt Keckeis' portrait and what signification the picture of the Taschenmunition/Munitions de poche has since it's neither issued anymore and currently being withdrawn from servicemen.

From my point of view the photos of the patrol boat and "army exercise" are nice, but could be left away in favour of, for instance, an image showing a vehicle/APC (i.e. Piranha or Spz 2000).

Before I just fiddle around with the article, I'd like to hear comments by others. Zigibumbala (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rank structure?[edit]

I've read the article several times and I can't find anything about the Swiss Army rank structure including illustrations. Am I overlooking something such as a link? The article seems incomplete without it. Yes, there is mention of the very senior ranks -- Brigadier, etc.--TGC55 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found link Military ranks of the Swiss Armed Forces and added it to "See also".--TGC55 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

To Swiss Armed Forces, as it is clearly stated that that is the real name.--RM (Be my friend) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Papal Swiss Guard[edit]

The main page can likely use a paragraph on the relation of the Swiss Armed forces to the Papal Swiss Guard. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that relation is quite loose, actually. Except for the requirement, that applicands for the swiss guard must have served in the swiss army, there's no direct relationship. Officialy, the swiss guard is also not called an army in switzerland, because it's prohibited for swiss soldiers to serve for foreign countries (the age of Swiss mercenaries is long gone). The swiss guard uses the same weapons as the swiss army (no, not counting the Halberd), the main reason for this being that the applicands already know how to handle these when they enter service for the swiss guard. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 07:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a "See also" link to the Swiss Guard? HiFiGuy (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romansch[edit]

The name of the Army in Romansch is in English?
Why does that seem highly unlikely?
Varlaam (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting broken link[edit]

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland#cite_note-basics-1">"The basic organisation of the Swiss Armed Forces"</a>
Meevinman (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Sorry, do not know how to text link on Wiki Meevinman (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Military of Switzerland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the archived URL works, and I believe it is useful. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title history[edit]

This is among Wikipedia's oldest articles, dating to May 2001:

I'm finding this last move of this longstanding stable title to be problematic for a couple of reasons:

– wbm1058 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back. "Military of Switzerland" is the commonsense title, at least in my view. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "Swiss Army" and "Switzerland Army" (?!) are bad titles, considering that "army" commonly refers to only the land forces. However, I would suggest to use "Swiss Armed Forces" as title, since that is how the Swiss military refers to itself in English [5]. It is also consistent with the article title on the German, French, and Italian Wikipedia, as well as with most article titles in List of militaries by country, where "XY Armed Forces" seems more common that "Military of XY". --Novarupta (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This being the English language wikipedia, Swiss Army is perfectly acceptable.
  2. Since we already have articles like Red Army, People's Liberation Army, and Korean People's Army, all of which are muti-service, the precedent on this, the English language wikipedia, is already set.
  3. "The Swiss Armed Forces (German: Schweizer Armee, French: Armée suisse, Italian: Esercito svizzero, Romanisch: Armada svizra) operates on land, in the air, and in international waters." In three out of four languages the word army is used. only the smallest group would be translated as Armed Forces.

The article title should be reverted back to Swiss Army. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC) AND the Air Corps is just one of the Army, traditional land force's units, while the "navy", such as it is, is part of the engineers.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 July 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Minor histmerge also required. Jenks24 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Military of Switzerland → Swiss Armed Forces – Swiss Armed Forces is the official name in English (see [6]). It is also the commonly used name in English, e.g. in scientific articles [7], news reports [8] and by other organisations [9]. I would also argue that it is more natural than the current name, and at least equal in terms of the other wp:criteria. Novarupta (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nominator's rationale, and as a Swiss resident. — JFG talk 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Admiral of the Swiss Navy[edit]

Stop removing this section. The info is properly sourced and has a clear relation to the Swiss Navy/Swiss Armed Forces. That you do not like it, User:FFA P-16, is not a reason to remove this sourced information. The Banner talk 19:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. How often have I heard from you: Not notable, overdetailed, not important.. so now this should be something important? Come on.
  • 2. If it is US Military Slang, it belong to an US Military Slang page, an US Military History page or whatever. But it has no relation to the Swiss Navy/Swiss Armed Forces. Only because some "Yankees" use it it has nothing to do with the real thing. No one in the Swiss Armed forces and no one in Switzerland use or knew this US Military frase. It is here on the wrong place.I suggest to move it to a page of american frases or so. FFA P-16 (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several people have re-added it, not only me. Are we all wrong with this? And when you start reading the article: it is now under "trivia". The Banner talk 21:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is from US Military Slang, it has not realy something to do with th swiss Military. So yes it is here on the wrong place, no one in Switzerland civil or in Military use this or knew this "Admiral of the Swiss Navy" US-Joke. Yes now I had seen that you moved it to Trivia. FFA P-16 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let us wait for the comments of others. The Banner talk 21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. BTW: If it is clear written that this is used only in the US-Military and is not known /used in Switzerland, i think it is OK.FFA P-16 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that this term is not used in Switzerland, but is it really necessary to create a "trivia" section for it? Please see WP:TRIVIA. I recommend merging this into the lakes flotilla section. I don't see how it is inappropriate for that section. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Novarupta (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend FFA P-16 was not happy when the admiral was mentioned in the section "Lakes flotilla". To my opinion it belongs there, but seeing the objections of FFA a trivia section is a good compromise. The Banner talk 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy in Guillaume Henri Dufour and other questions[edit]

This article states that Guillaume Henri Dufour served as the Federal General of Switzerland twice in his career: 1847–1848 and 1856–1857. However, the article General (Switzerland) states that he served three times: beginning in 1849, 27 December 1856, and 1859. There are at least two discrepancies between these two articles. Additionally, the source this article cites for this can only be accessed if one is subscribed, and the other article cites no source at all. Even worse, Dufour's own article does not mention his two/three terms as general at all. Some help would be greatly appreciated.

One more thing: because more editors will likely see this talk page than the other ones that I will post on, I noticed that the article of Christophe Keckeis still shows him as currently serving in the Swiss military, while André Blattmann's article shows him completely retired from the Swiss military (something I did as an assumption). Does Keckeis still serve in the military, and is Blattmann retired from the military (and not just as Chief of the Armed Forces)? --1990'sguy (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Keckeis is definitely in retirement and gets his proper pension. since 1.Januar 2008 Since 31.12.2007 he don't serve in the military anymore.André Blattmann would had have his regular retirement on the 31.December 2017, but he had already quit his job as Chief of the Armed Forces to the 31.12.2016. Blattmann is now acting from the 01.01.2017 to the 31.12.2017 as advisor for the new Chief of the Armed Forces. André Blattmann will still get in this time the 100% Salery like he got before as Chief of the Armed Forces.FFA P-16 (talk) 08:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So is it correct to say that Blattmann's years of service in the Swiss military are over, as I changed his infobox to say? --1990'sguy (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I changed it to "present", as he does not appear to have completely retired, unless you object. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you,and yes that is right. BTW [10] "Bis zu seiner Pensionierung werde Blattmann der Armee als Berater dienen." He will work as advisor for the Swiss Military."Nach seinem Austritt werde Blattmann ein Jahressalär erhalten." He will get one year his salery. "Blattmann wird Mitte 2018 pensioniert..." He would have his regular retirement in 2018. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your help, FFA P-16. Can you explain my first question by any chance? --1990'sguy (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 1990'sguy. I am not so into the old history of the swiss military.. more in the after ww2 military aviatic of Switzerland.So my knowleg about Guillaume Henri Dufour is not big. I had a look at the german Wikipedia pages and French Wikipedia pages about Guillaume Henri Dufour and General (Switzerland) it looks like he was General in 1847, 1849, 1856 and 1859. As I understand the german text (my native language, he was 4 times General, just for the time the conflict was heat, I never had the rank of General for more than 1 year (in 1849 it was les than a half month.)FFA P-16 (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FFA P-16 for your explanation. The discrepency is very odd. I tagged the articles in question, and if I have enough time, I will research this question. I should note that 1847 was a year before the Switzerland's current form of goernment was established, so I don't know if his first tenure should count? --1990'sguy (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can count his first tenure. He was promotet to General then like the 3 times later, he got this rank 4 times, only the first time it was a other institution of the goverment but the rank of general it self did not get any changes in the reform of the goverment. The first time it was the "Tagsatzung" the other 3 times (and would be today) the Bundesversammlung afterthis reform the "Tagsatzung" did not exist anymore. So in my opinion I would say he was 4 times (even they where very short) General.FFA P-16 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am more active in the today swiss aivatic field or swiss military vehicles, so i only have found this references in the german wikipedia about Guillame-Henri Dufour abot his Military service (there are also refs. about him as politican, as Red Cross helper, as Ingenier).As Genneral in:Sonderbund War, 1849 (Büsinger Handel [1][2], 1856 (Neuchâtel Crisis[3]) und 1859 (Savoyer Handel[4])

References

  1. ^ Wyrsch-Ineichen, Paul: Die Schwyzer Truppen im Büsinger-Handel 1849 von 1985 in Mitteilungen des historischen Vereins des Kantons Schwyz
  2. ^ Aktivdienst in German, French and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland.Error in template * unknown parameter name (Template:HDS): "Autor"
  3. ^ Rapport sur l’armement et la campagne de 1857. Revue militaire Suisse 1857
  4. ^ Toast à la Patrie. Revue militaire Suisse 1860
Thank you for finding those sources, FFA P-16! I added this information, along with Dufour's Historical Dictionary of Switzerland article, to the three articles in question. It appears this problem is solved as well, unless I'm mistaken. :) --1990'sguy (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saicology[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saicology[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economic[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accounding[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My subject sociology[edit]

Why not 😐🤣 86.97.11.207 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything[edit]

Yes 86.97.11.207 (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swiss_Armed_Forces&oldid=1206468112"