en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_neutrality#Criticism

Swiss official historical sources contradict the figure of 850,000 soldiers. The Bibliothek am Guisanplatz (a Swiss federal military library) states that after the general mobilization for 2 September 1939, 430,000 soldiers and 200,000 auxiliaries/complementary-service personnel entered service. The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland likewise records 430,000 military personnel plus 200,000 men in complementary services at the 1939 general mobilization.

That means the article’s wording is inaccurate in two ways:

1. It inflates the number of soldiers. The official figure for soldiers was about 430,000, not 850,000.
2. It appears to blur soldiers with other personnel. Even adding complementary-service personnel yields about 630,000, still well below 850,000.

So the claim that Switzerland "mobilized 850,000 soldiers" is not supported by the official Swiss historical record and is contradicted by it.

The article says the Afghanistan observer mission was the nation’s "first military deployment since 1815". Official Swiss military sources contradict that.

The Swiss Armed Forces state that in 1953 the Federal Council sent around 150 Swiss Armed Forces members to Korea, and describe the NNSC mission as the oldest Swiss Armed Forces peacekeeping mission. Another official Swiss Armed Forces history page says Swiss military peace support began in 1953 with the dispatch of armed Swiss soldiers to Korea, and that nearly 14,000 service members have since served in such missions worldwide.

So Afghanistan cannot have been the first military deployment since 1815, because Switzerland had already deployed military personnel abroad decades earlier, beginning in 1953, with further peace-support deployments later as well.

The article says Switzerland can only adopt sanctions imposed by "the United Nations Security Council, the EU or the OECD". Official Swiss legal sources contradict that formulation.

SECO’s page on the Embargo Act explains that the law is the basis for sanctions implemented by Switzerland. The official English translation of the Act states that coercive measures may be imposed to enforce sanctions that have been ordered by the United Nations, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), or Switzerland’s most significant trading partners. The OECD is not listed in the statute as a sanctions-imposing body for this purpose.

So the reference to the OECD is incorrect. If the article is trying to summarize the legal framework, the relevant bodies are the UN, the OSCE, and Switzerland’s important trading partners.

The statement says a referendum on the neutrality initiative was expected in 2025. That is no longer correct.

The Swiss Federal Chancellery’s official initiative page shows the initiative was indeed certified on 28 May 2024, but it also shows that the parliamentary procedure ran until 20 March 2026. That means the proposal had not gone to a federal popular vote in 2025.

A current Swissinfo report from March 2026 then states that Swiss citizens are expected to vote on the neutrality initiative in 2026. So the article’s claim that the referendum was expected in 2025 is outdated and contradicted by the later official timeline.

The article says that in 2016 the Section of Private Security Services "has received 300 approval requests". The official FDFA activity report says something different.

According to the Swiss government’s report on implementation of the Federal Act on Private Security Services Provided Abroad, the authority reviewed some 300 declarations by private security companies over the period September 2015 to December 2016. That is not the same as 300 approval requests, and it is not limited to 2016 alone.

So the wording on the page is inaccurate in both the type of submissions involved (declarations vs. approval requests) and the time period covered (Sept. 2015–Dec. 2016 vs. only 2016).