The 1918 national strike in Switzerland and its didactic treatment in history lessons

Contributed by Anna Marie Broszio [Ruhr-Universität Bochum]

The nation-wide general strike from 12 to 14 November 1918 is considered the greatest domestic political crisis in Switzerland in the 20th century. It was the result of profound social and economic tensions that had intensified considerably during the First World War. Although Switzerland had remained neutral, the consequences of the war affected the population to the full extent. Blockades and trade barriers led to supply shortages, food prices rose massively, and wages did not keep pace with this development. While farmers and parts of the middle class were able to secure their livelihoods or even make profits, urban workers were affected by inflation, housing shortages and long working hours. These growing contrasts between rich and poor shaped everyday life and led to the increasing politicisation of the working class.

Today's research sees the national strike as the culmination of a conflict-ridden intertwining of social, economic and political tensions that had built up between the working class and the rural-bourgeois strata of the population during the war years. It was not an attempt at revolutionary overthrow, but rather a protest movement linked to clearly reform-oriented demands. Nevertheless, the circumstances of the time led many contemporaries to interpret the strike in a way that went far beyond its original goals and saw it as a threat to the political order.

In this climate, closer cooperation developed between trade unions and social democrats. On 4 February 1918, leading representatives founded the Olten Action Committee (OAK) in Olten, which acted as the political leadership of the workers and transformed the growing discontent into an organised movement. When the social crisis came to a head in the autumn and the military was called in to quell workers' demonstrations, the Olten Action Committee (OAK) called for a general strike on 12 November 1918. Around 250,000 workers took part, while the Federal Council mobilised some 95,000 soldiers. After three days, the Olten Action Committee (OAK) ended the strike to prevent further escalation. The national strike highlighted the deep social divisions of the time and remains a key reference point in the history of the Swiss labour movement. The following section examines the causes that led to this escalation, the demands made by the strikers, the details of how the strike unfolded, and its long-term consequences for Swiss politics and society.

Causes of the Strike

However, before the great national strike of 1918 took place, its background cannot be understood without considering the numerous smaller work stoppages that shook Switzerland, particularly in 1917. These protests were an expression of growing social hardship and formed the immediate basis for the mobilisation of the general strike in November 1918.                     

As early as the spring and summer of 1917, spontaneous walkouts took place in various cities in protest against inflation, wage arrears and inadequate supplies. The unrest became particularly visible on 30 August, when thousands of workers downed tools in several cities. This half-day demonstration strike was not only the largest collective industrial action since the beginning of the war, but also demonstrated the labour movement's ability to organise supra-regional protests. The escalation in 1917 was closely linked to the social conditions of the time. Prices for basic foodstuffs continued to rise, while real wages stagnated or even declined. Hunger, housing shortages and what was perceived as an unfair distribution of the burden between the bourgeoisie and the working class led to increasing radicalisation of the mood. In this atmosphere, trade unions and social democrats moved closer together. The founding of the Olten Action Committee (OAK) in February 1918 was a decisive step in this direction. For the first time, there was a central leadership capable of transforming the multitude of local protests into a unified movement. 

The causes of the 1918 national strike should therefore not be viewed in isolation, but rather seen as the result of the profound social and economic tensions that had already built up during the war. Although Switzerland remained militarily neutral, the consequences of the war were also clearly felt at home. The supply of food and everyday goods deteriorated considerably during the war years and prices rose sharply. Switzerland's heavy dependence on food imports during the First World War was the result of long-term economic developments. Agriculture had already undergone significant changes in the second half of the 19th century. Under pressure from international markets, it shifted from grain to the dairy and meat sectors, as cheap grain was available in large quantities on the world markets. Domestic production therefore increasingly focused on livestock farming, while bread grain was increasingly imported from abroad. This specialisation was reinforced by geographical conditions, as much of Switzerland's soil was unsuitable for arable farming, meaning that only a limited part of the population could be supplied with domestic grain.  

At the same time, since industrialisation, Switzerland had developed into a strongly export-oriented economy. Machinery, watches, chemical products and chocolate were sold abroad on a large scale. The foreign currency earned from these exports was in turn used to import the foodstuffs necessary for basic supplies. This meant that Switzerland was well integrated into world trade in times of peace, but at the same time vulnerable to crises. With the outbreak of the First World War, this dependence worsened dramatically. Blockades and trade barriers meant that the usual imports were only possible to a limited extent. The Allied naval blockade in particular greatly reduced grain imports, leading to supply shortages, rationing and noticeable inflation.

The dramatic deterioration in living conditions for broad sections of the population was particularly significant. Rapid inflation led to massive increases in the prices of basic foodstuffs, while wages remained largely unchanged. As a result of this development, working-class families lost up to a third of their purchasing power. Housing shortages and inadequate food supplies further exacerbated the situation and contributed to a climate of general discontent. While the more affluent classes were able to at least partially offset the higher prices, this development hit the working class extremely hard. While the more affluent classes were able to cushion the higher prices, the shortages hit the working class particularly hard and contributed significantly to the social tensions of the war years. The working class was particularly affected by this development, as their incomes barely kept pace with inflation. While the wealthier classes and parts of the agricultural sector were able to hold their own or even benefit from the higher prices, the everyday life of many working-class families was marked by deprivation.             

Added to this were the inadequate working conditions in industry and commerce. Working hours remained high, averaging around ten hours per day. At the same time, there were only limited protective regulations, so the strain on employees was considerable. In many households, the earnings of the male head of the family were not enough to cover the rising cost of living. This made it essential for women to work, but their jobs were systematically worse paid. Before the First World War, women generally earned around 60 per cent of men's wages, which further exacerbated the economic hardship of many families. This perceived injustice contributed to growing discontent and reinforced feelings of social disadvantage.

This made social contrasts increasingly apparent. On the one hand, there was a wealthier minority that was largely able to maintain its standard of living; on the other, there was a broad working class that was confronted with rising prices, inadequate wages and precarious working conditions. During the war years, these inequalities led to growing social tensions and intensified political mobilisation within the labour movement.

In this climate, the organisational unity of the labour movement also increased. The Swiss Trade Union Federation (SGB) played a central role in this. Together with the Social Democrats, the Olten Action Committee (OAK) was founded in the autumn of 1918.

The Olten Action Committee (OAK) was founded on 4 February 1918 in Olten. The reason for this was the growing unrest among the working class, which was exacerbated by inflation, supply crises and what was perceived as repressive behaviour on the part of the authorities. In order to provide central leadership for the numerous local labour disputes, leading representatives of the Social Democratic Party and the trade unions decided to establish a joint committee. The town of Olten was not chosen at random, as its position as a railway junction made it logistically well suited to coordinating nationwide actions.

The Olten Action Committee (OAK) was made up of leading figures in the labour movement, including Social Democrat Robert Grimm, trade unionist Friedrich Schneider and future Federal Councillor Ernst Nobs. The aim of this committee was to unite the resistance of the working class, avoid spontaneous escalations and at the same time exert political pressure on the government.

Even before it was founded, there had been supra-regional strike actions, such as the demonstration strike of 30 August 1917, which can be regarded as a precursor to nationwide mobilisation. The Olten Action Committee (OAK) followed suit and took the lead in the months that followed. When the crisis came to a head in the autumn of 1918 and the military intimidated workers' demonstrations in Zurich, the committee called for a national strike on 12 November 1918.

The Olten Action Committee thus became the central organisational and political force behind the national strike of 1918. It gave the workers' demands for social security, shorter working hours and political participation a nationally coordinated voice and was thus decisive in the course of events. Accordingly, this body was to act as the joint leadership of the labour movement, pooling demands and coordinating actions. The founding of the Olten Action Committee (OAK) thus represented an attempt to channel the discontent of the workers into an organised, nationwide protest movement and thereby exert political pressure on the government and the bourgeoisie.

Demands of the strikers

At the heart of the national strike was the so-called nine-point catalogue, which was published by the Olten Action Committee (OAK) on 11 November 1918. The Olten Action Committee (OAK) had been founded a few months earlier, on 4 February 1918, and was made up of leading figures in the labour movement, including Robert Grimm, Friedrich Schneider and Ernst Nobs. With the publication of the catalogue, the committee responded to the growing social hardship exacerbated by the First World War and the increasing political tensions in the country. The aim was to bring together the many local protests and give the workers' demands a unified programme.

The demand for immediate new elections to the National Council based on proportional representation played a particularly important role. This had been accepted in a referendum in October 1918, but its implementation had been delayed by the authorities. Under the new system, seats in parliament would no longer be allocated according to the majority principle, which disadvantaged small parties, but according to the proportion of votes cast. In this way, the labour movement sought to achieve fairer representation in the National Council and expand its political influence.

In addition, the catalogue contained several socio-political demands. Particularly noteworthy was the introduction of women's suffrage, which was intended to ensure political equality between men and women for the first time. Given that women had taken over the work of men in many areas during the war, this was not only a symbolic demand but also an expression of social change. Another key demand was the introduction of the 48-hour working week, which would have meant a significant improvement in working conditions. In many industries, ten to twelve-hour working days were still the norm, which was considered unacceptable in view of inflation and the strain on health.

The introduction of old-age and disability insurance was also part of the programme. The aim was to create secure social protection for people in old age or unable to work for the first time. This demand was not only relevant in Switzerland, but also corresponded to an international trend ( ), as many European countries had already introduced initial forms of social insurance at that time.

In addition to these key points, the nine-point catalogue included further demands for reform aimed at a fundamental reorganisation of the state and the economy. These included the reorganisation of the army and the democratisation of the officer corps in order to place the military more firmly under the control of civilian politics. It also called for state control to secure food supplies and a state monopoly on imports and exports in order to better manage the supply situation in times of crisis. Finally, the Olten Action Committee (OAK) demanded that the national debt be repaid by the wealthy, i.e. those who had made profits during the war.

The complete list was as follows:

1. Immediate re-election of the National Council according to proportional representation.
2. Introduction of active and passive voting rights for women.
3. Introduction of the 48-hour working week.
4. Reorganisation of the army.
5. Securing the food supply through state control.
6. Introduction of old-age and disability insurance.
7. State monopoly on imports and exports.
8. Repayment of government debt by property owners.
9. Democratisation of the military, especially the officer corps.

With this programme, the Olten Action Committee combined short-term demands aimed at the acute social emergency with long-term political and social reforms. It was not only about improving wages and working conditions, but also about more comprehensive democratisation and the introduction of elements of the welfare state.                         

The nine-point catalogue thus makes it clear that the national strike went far beyond a classic labour dispute. It was an expression of the workers' demand to participate actively in shaping political and social life and to initiate profound changes in Swiss society.

Course of the national strike of 1918

The national strike from 12 to 14 November 1918 was the culmination of a development that had been steadily escalating since the beginning of the war. The situation was already tense in the autumn of 1918. Numerous local strikes had made the unrest among the workers visible, and the inflation and supply crisis increased the pressure on the political order.

When the Federal Council decided in early November 1918 to send troops to Zurich to break up a workers' demonstration there, this was perceived by large sections of the workforce as a clear provocation. The decision came at a time when tensions were already running high, marked by the social hardships of the First World War and the political marginalisation of the labour movement. The massive military deployment in particular reinforced the impression that the government was less interested in dialogue than in confrontation and intimidation.   

The Olten Action Committee (OAK), which had been founded in February 1918 as a joint coordinating body of Swiss workers' organisations and was chaired by Robert Grimm, reacted immediately to this measure.

On 9 November, it called for a 24-hour protest strike, which was implemented in 19 industrial centres across the country. This protest coincided with the proclamation of the republic in Berlin, which further reinforced the perception of a revolutionary situation in Europe and also strongly influenced interpretations of events in Switzerland.

In Zurich, the workers' union went one step further. It decided, independently of the Olten Action Committee (OAK), to continue the general strike locally until the military occupation of the city had ended. This led to a dangerous dynamic between the central strike leadership and local organisations, which restricted the scope of action of the Olten Action Committee (OAK) and increased the risk of an uncontrollable escalation.        

On 10 November, a momentous incident finally occurred. Security forces under the command of Colonel Emil Sonderegger, who would later emerge as a leading right-wing extremist in the 1930s, violently suppressed a workers' demonstration at Zurich's Münsterhof. This led to an exchange of fire, resulting in the death of a soldier. This event contributed decisively to a further hardening of positions. The labour movement saw the military's actions as confirmation of its assessment that the state did not want to recognise the interests of the working class and was instead prepared to use military force.

After negotiations between the Olten Action Committee (OAK) and the Federal Council regarding the withdrawal of troops proved fruitless, the committee decided to take the dispute to the national level. On the evening of 11 November, a general strike was declared, to take effect the following day. This marked the beginning of the largest collective work stoppage in Swiss history, an event that plunged the country into a three-day domestic political crisis of unprecedented proportions.

In this situation, the Olten Action Committee (OAK) decided to publish the nine-point catalogue on 11 November and call a nationwide strike for the following day. In doing so, the committee wanted to put the workers' social demands on the political agenda and send a clear signal against military intimidation.

The strike began on the morning of 12 November 1918. Around 250,000 workers responded to the call, mobilising almost the entire organised workforce in Switzerland. Participation was particularly strong in urban centres and industrial regions such as Zurich, Basel, Bern, Biel, Winterthur and Grenchen. The strike paralysed many areas of public life. Factories ceased production, railways and trams ran only on a limited basis, post and telegraph offices stopped working, and newspaper printing was interrupted in many places . This made the strike visible and tangible to the entire population. In rural areas, however, the response was weak, partly because farmers had tended to benefit from rising prices during the war years, while workers in the cities had borne the brunt of inflation.

The Federal Council's response was decisive. As early as 9 November, before the official start of the strike, the government had mobilised around 95,000 soldiers. They were stationed in all major cities, especially Zurich, Basel and Bern. There, squares, railway stations and central buildings were occupied by soldiers. In addition, vigilante groups were formed to work with the army to maintain public order. The Federal Council left no doubt that it did not consider the strike to be a legitimate industrial action, but rather a threat to the state order. On the one hand, it wanted to use the military presence to prevent strikes and demonstrations, but on the other hand, it also wanted to send a signal of strength to the entire workforce.

During the first two days, the strike was largely disciplined and without any major escalation of violence. The Olten Action Committee (OAK) issued numerous appeals to the workers to remain calm and non-violent, as it wanted to avoid the strike degenerating into open conflict with the military. Nevertheless, the mood remained tense.

In several cities, there were confrontations between demonstrators and soldiers, with the danger of escalation ever-present. The most dramatic incident occurred on 14 November in Grenchen, an important industrial town in the canton of Solothurn. A large crowd had gathered there and soldiers were called in to disperse it. When the strikers failed to comply with their orders, the soldiers opened fire. Three workers were shot dead and several others were injured. This event shocked workers throughout Switzerland and showed how dangerous the situation had become. To this day, Grenchen is considered a symbol of how the national strike could have turned into open civil war at any moment.          The Olten Action Committee found itself in a difficult position during those days. On the one hand, it was determined to represent the workers' demands and build political pressure through the strike. On the other hand, leaders such as Robert Grimm were aware that the balance of power in the Swiss Confederation was clearly against them. Given the massive military presence and the uncompromising stance of the Federal Council, the strike was unlikely to be successful. The escalation in Grenchen also made it clear that there was a risk of further fatalities. Against this backdrop, the Olten Action Committee (OAK) decided on the evening of 14 November to officially call off the strike.           

In its official statement on the end of the strike, the Olten Action Committee explained that continuing the industrial action in the face of the government's military superiority would inevitably have led to further violent clashes and thus to bloodshed. It was therefore necessary to call off the strike in order to avoid escalation and to bring the workers' existing demands into the democratic decision-making process through political and institutional debate.    

Most workers returned to their jobs on the same day. This brought the national strike to an end after only three days, even though it had almost completely paralysed public life in Switzerland during this short period. In the aftermath, the leaders of the Olten Action Committee (OAK) were prosecuted, and the bourgeois press widely interpreted the strike as a "Bolshevik attempt at revolution". For the workers, however, it remained an expression of social hardship and a signal that their concerns could no longer be ignored.       

The national strike was the largest collective mobilisation of workers in Switzerland to date. Its course impressively demonstrated how deep the social divides between the bourgeoisie and the working class had become during the war years and how willing the government was to resort to military means to maintain the existing order.

Consequences and significance

The national strike of November 1918 ended after three days with the defeat of the labour movement. The Olten Action Committee (OAK) ended the strike on 14 November because the government's military superiority made it seem futile to continue and the risk of further escalation could not be justified. Many contemporaries perceived the end of the strike as a sign of weakness on the part of the workers. The fact that none of the nine demands of the Olten Action Committee (OAK) were immediately met reinforced the impression of failure. In the short term, the strike led to deep disillusionment within the labour movement and strengthened the bourgeois forces, who saw their opposition to socialist aspirations confirmed.

The reaction of the political and legal institutions made this defeat clear. Leading members of the Olten Action Committee (OAK), including Robert Grimm, Ernst Nobs and Friedrich Schneider, were brought before military courts and prosecuted. Even though the penalties were not very severe in all cases, the charges had symbolic significance. They were intended to underline the authority of the government and show the workers that political conflicts could not be forced through mass strikes. In the bourgeois press, the strike was often portrayed as a "Bolshevik attempt at revolution," which further deepened the divide between the political camps. The national strike thus shaped the political culture of the post-war years by creating a climate of mistrust and division.

Despite this immediate defeat, however, the national strike had far-reaching consequences for the development of Swiss society and politics in the long term. Numerous demands from the nine-point catalogue, which had remained unfulfilled in 1918, were incorporated into the political system in the course of the 20th century. As early as 1919, proportional representation was used for the first time in the National Council elections. This enabled smaller parties, above all the Social Democratic Party, to win seats in parliament in proportion to their share of the vote.

This led to a much more realistic reflection of the political balance of power and strengthened the democratic legitimacy of parliament. The 48-hour working week also became established in the immediate aftermath. It represented a significant improvement in the working and living conditions of the working class and was visible proof that the socio-political concerns of the labour movement could not be ignored in the medium term. An even more far-reaching success was the introduction of old age and survivors' insurance (AHV) in 1948. Although this came three decades after the national strike, it was a direct realisation of a key demand of the Olten Action Committee (OAK).  The AHV laid the foundation for the modern Swiss welfare state and remains one of its cornerstones to this day.

The long-term significance of the national strike is also particularly evident in the area of political rights. Although women's suffrage, which had been demanded as early as 1918, was not incorporated into the constitution until 1971, it marked the final implementation of one of the central demands for equality in the nine-point catalogue. The long period of time it took to achieve this shows that although the national strike failed in the short term, its demands had a lasting effect that continued to have an impact for generations.

In addition to these concrete institutional and socio-political achievements, the national strike also had a fundamental significance for Switzerland's political culture. It showed that social tensions during the war years had reached a level that brought the country to the brink of civil war. The fact that the government used military force against the workers made it clear how great the mistrust of revolutionary movements was. At the same time, however, it also became apparent that Swiss politics found ways in the following decades to gradually integrate the concerns of the workers into the democratic decision-making process.

The national strike was thus, on the one hand, a failure of the revolutionary aspirations of the workers, but on the other hand, it was also the starting point for a long-term reform process. It marked a turning point, after which it becam ly clear that fundamental social and political issues could not be suppressed indefinitely, but had to be addressed within a democratic framework.

In this way, although it remained unsuccessful, the national strike contributed to the integration of the labour movement into the political system and had a decisive influence on the development of Swiss democracy.

Remembering the national strike today

The memory of the national strike of 1918 remains one of the most controversial areas of Swiss historical culture to this day. Shortly after the end of the strike, two opposing interpretations emerged that shaped the understanding of the event for decades. On the bourgeois side, the prevailing view was that the national strike was nothing more than a Bolshevik attempt at revolution. From this perspective, the military crackdown was seen as a necessary measure to defend the state order. On the left, however, the strike was remembered as a legitimate protest against social hardship, political inequality and state repression. Especially among social democrats and trade unions, it became a symbol of the struggle for greater justice and democracy.

Controversial interpretations of the national strike did not only develop after it had ended, but were already clearly evident in the run-up to it. There were different positions within the political left. While the official line of the party and trade unions was that the general strike was a legitimate means of drawing attention to social hardship and demanding political reforms, there were also voices that were fundamentally sceptical about the idea of a general strike. In addition, there were revolutionary-minded actors who sought a more radical escalation, as well as uncertain groups that wavered between approval and rejection.

On the political right, however, the national strike was framed from the outset as a supposed revolutionary threat. Conspiracy theories about the labour movement had been circulating in bourgeois circles for decades, and these were given new impetus after the October Revolution of 1917.

Fears of an uprising in Switzerland led to the Olten Action Committee (OAK) being referred to as the "Soviet d'Olten" in the French-speaking press from April 1918 onwards. General Ulrich Wille, commander-in-chief of the Swiss army, reinforced this perception by portraying the Zimmerwald (1915) and Kiental (1916) conferences as the supposed starting points for a planned revolution in Switzerland.

 A large-scale investigation by the Federal Prosecutor's Office after the national strike found no evidence of any organisational link between the strike leadership and foreign, particularly Soviet, influence. Even during the national strike trial in 1919, the idea that "foreign money" had played a role in the strike was dismissed as a myth by the authorities. Nevertheless, the negative myth of an attempted coup took hold in post-war bourgeois journalism and historiography. Particularly influential in this context was the so-called Projet d'instructions générales après la révolution en Suisse, published by the Russian writer Serge Persky in the Gazette de Lausanne on 23 April 1919. This document, whose authenticity was highly dubious, suggested a detailed plan for the establishment of a "Soviet Switzerland" under the leadership of Karl Radek, a close confidant of Lenin.

Overall, it is clear that the interpretation of the national strike was highly politicised from the outset. While the labour movement saw the general strike primarily as a means of self-assertion and protest, bourgeois circles constructed a threat scenario that made the strike appear to be a revolutionary attempt at overthrow. These early patterns of interpretation shaped the memory of the national strike well into the mid-20th century.

This polarisation reflected the political divisions of the interwar period and the early post-war period. It meant that a sober debate was blocked for a long time. While the bourgeois public often interpreted the strike as a "trauma" that served as a warning against revolutionary experiments, the labour movement developed a martyr tradition in which the workers killed in the strike, for example in Grenchen, were remembered as victims of an unjust social order.

With the passage of time, the culture of remembrance began to change. A decisive turning point came in 1968, the 50th anniversary of the strike, which was marked by a broad public debate and the publication of Willi Gautschi's standard work Der Landesstreik 1918 (The National Strike of 1918). Gautschi sought to present a source-based account that was less coloured by party politics. His work helped to shift the memory from the realm of political instrumentalisation to that of scientific analysis. From this point on, the national strike was increasingly perceived as a subject of research, and the previously sharp dichotomy between the "Bolshevik threat" and the "heroic deed of the labour movement" began to slowly dissolve.

Subsequent anniversaries, 75 years in 1993 and, above all, the 100th anniversary in 2018, continued and intensified this process. To mark the centenary, numerous exhibitions, publications and conferences were organised, shedding light on the national strike from different perspectives. The Swiss National Museum presented a highly acclaimed exhibition, and anthologies such as those by Rossfeld, Koller and Studer (2018) and Auderset et al. (2018) summarised the state of research and demonstrated the diversity of approaches. It became clear that the national strike is no longer remembered solely as a politically contested event, but is also considered part of Switzerland's broader social and democratic tradition.

In addition to these national forms of remembrance, local culture of remembrance also plays an important role. A lasting tradition of remembrance has established itself, particularly in Grenchen, where three workers were shot by soldiers on 14 November 1918. Commemorative events, monuments and the symbolic veneration of the dead as martyrs are part of a living local memory that is strongly linked to the identity of the labour movement. This local dimension complements the national interpretation by highlighting the suffering of the victims and making the experience of social conflict tangible.

Today, the memory of the national strike is no longer exclusively marked by political polarisation, but is increasingly understood as part of a critical historical culture. In schools, museums and public debates, the strike serves as an example of the conflictual nature of Swiss history and as a lesson in the dangers of social division. At the same time, it is also seen as a starting point for the long-term integration of the working class into the political system. Many of the demands formulated in the nine-point catalogue were realised in the course of the 20th century, so that in retrospect the strike can also be interpreted as a symbol of the path from confrontation to reform.

Overall, the memory of the 1918 national strike has undergone a remarkable transformation. From its immediate political exploitation after 1918 to its scholarly reinterpretation since the 1960s and the pluralistic and differentiated debate of the present day, a broad spectrum of interpretations has emerged.

In the run-up to the centenary in 2018, the national strike received significantly more public attention. As early as November 2017, the Swiss Trade Union Federation organised a conference that kicked off the debates. An open-air theatre was planned for the summer of 2018 in Olten, while in November of the same year, a major exhibition was opened by the Swiss National Museum in collaboration with the Social Archives. In addition, there were further television productions, numerous regional exhibitions and a large number of publications.

However, this broad interest was not without controversy. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung newspaper repeatedly warned against a supposed historical-political "usurpation" of the "Swiss model of success" by left-wing actors and, as a preventive measure, raised the accusation of possible "historical distortion". This view was supported by the historiography of Rudolf Jaun and Tobias Straumann, who interpreted the national strike as a pure power struggle between the army leadership and left-wing labour leaders, based on a narrow source base, selective consideration of the state of research and not free from factual inaccuracies.

Their argumentation was aimed in particular at refuting what they saw as a caricatured and exaggerated "narrative of impoverishment" ( ) which, according to their interpretation, had dominated social history research since the 1970s. This shifted the focus of historical-political debates: whereas in the decades after 1918 the main issue was the nature of the strike and the role of the labour movement in the state, in the wake of the centenary the question of the (de)legitimisation of the welfare state increasingly became the centre of debate.

Current research, however, focuses on other areas. For example, an ongoing SNSF project at the University of Bern is investigating the embedding of the national strike in the broader wave of protests from 1917 to 1919, the role of emotions among the actors involved, the debate on gender roles and their breakdown during the crisis, and the transnational dimensions of the strike. The event is no longer understood primarily as an isolated Swiss episode, but is placed in the context of what Jörn Leonhard describes as a "global revolution of rising expectations" beginning in 1917. These thematic expansions not only overcome national narrow-mindedness, but also bring previously marginalised actors to the fore. The centenary thus not only opened up new perspectives on the national strike itself, but also offered insight into the lines of conflict in contemporary memory politics. The disputes over interpretive authority and the orientation of memory culture reflect not only historical controversies, but also point to fundamental questions about Switzerland's self-image and socio-political orientation in the 21st century.

Today, the national strike is seen on the one hand as a warning about the threat to internal stability in times of crisis and on the other as a symbol of Swiss society's ability to ultimately overcome profound conflicts through democratic reforms. The event has thus become firmly anchored in Switzerland's collective memory.

Conclusion

The national strike of 1918 represents a historical turning point that goes far beyond the three-day industrial action. It was the culmination of social and economic tensions that had been exacerbated during the First World War by inflation, supply shortages and the political marginalisation of the working class. The demands of the Olten Action Committee made it clear that this was not just about short-term material improvements, but about a comprehensive social reorganisation. The course of the strike, in particular the military mobilisation and the escalation in Grenchen, demonstrated both the depth of the conflict and the Federal Council's willingness to use force to maintain the existing order.

In the short term, the abrupt end of the strike meant defeat for the labour movement and led to a strengthening of bourgeois defensive attitudes. In the long term, however, many of the demands made proved to be groundbreaking for the development of Swiss democracy and the welfare state. The introduction of proportional representation in 1919, the establishment of the 48-hour working week and the creation of the AHV in 1948 are evidence that the strikers' central demands were gradually realised. The national strike was thus less a revolutionary break than a catalyst for a long-term reform process.

The culture of remembrance also illustrates the ambivalent nature of the event. While bourgeois circles long interpreted it as an attempted coup, the labour movement remembered it as a symbol of protest and the struggle for social justice. With the passage of time, the interpretation changed: today, the national strike is no longer primarily discussed in ideological terms, but is understood as part of a critical historical culture that highlights both the dangers of social division and the opportunities for democratic integration. Overall, the national strike of 1918 shows that social conflicts can escalate in times of profound crisis, but in the long term they can also serve as a starting point for reform. It is thus not only a key event in the Swiss labour movement, but also a lesson in the ability of democratic societies to channel conflicts into institutional channels and ensure political stability through a willingness to reform.