Talk:Reduit

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Fortifications task force

Switzerland Mid‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Airports[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Political influence[edit]

"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)[reply]

Airport caverns[edit]

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)[reply]

Proposed Merger With National Redoubt[edit]

I think that the articles should remain separate. Although they are conceptually similar, the Reduit article refers almost entirely to Switzerland. The easiest solution is to re-title the Reduit article to Swiss Reduit, and create prominent links between the two articles. Trasel (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the meaning of redoubt and the article National redoubt as far as I can tell this article either needs a rename or merge. Its lead is very confusing, if indeed it does not mean redoubt. -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a "réduit is a fortification which provides protection during a persistent attack. A citadel, for example, is the réduit of a classical fortification." and a "redoubt is a fort or fort system usually consisting of an enclosed defensive emplacement outside a larger fort" then they are describing different things. But the definition for réduit does not carry a citation so the first thing that is needed is a reliable English language source that supports the meaning of réduit given in this article. -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google Book search and not one English language book was returned. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the Réduit article should stand as is (since it is a unique subtopic. Perhaps re-naming it would be apropos, as long as there are still referring links from "Réduit". Meanwhile, the Redoubt article should be expanded. And, by the way, the concept is not unique to Europe. See the Fujian Tulou article, for example. BobbieCharlton (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I looked it up in the OED where it is spelt "Reduit", and it gives the definition: "A keep or stronghold into which a garrison may retreat if the outworks are taken, thereby prolonging the defence of the place." Given that definition which is different from that of "Redoubt" then I would agree, but the most recent usage by the OED does say:

"2003 N. Macpherson Amer. Intelligence War-time London vi. 177 As for the Reduit (or Redoubt), this was the rumoured area for ‘a last-ditch stand’ in the Bavarian, Austrian and Italian Alps."

so the use for a "National Redoubt" and a "National Reduit" seem to be describing the same thing so perhaps the parts describing that concept should be merged in to the article National Redoubt. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted move and edit of English word "Reduit" to the French spelling "Réduit"[edit]

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)[reply]

country, county, or both?[edit]

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)[reply]