6 ms·

Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted

by tedggh 9d ago

Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.

embedding-shape 9d ago
Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B <> Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral. I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single country on the European continent can be considered "neutral". So maybe with this lens, Switzerland was "the most neutral" if you compare with others?
- watwut 9d ago
  There is a difference between someone running from persecution and someone leaving because they might be conscripted into invasion they agree with or because they dont like the economy. Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here. You could sorta a little equate Ukrainians, a little. And yes, actual historical events and motivations of past actors matter. Yes, there were multiple fully on-the-nazi side countries, Swiss were not them. That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.
  - embedding-shape 9d ago
    > That does not make the comparison you made meaningful. Yeah, even when I tried my best to, apparently the labels just fire up too much emotions. I've removed the country names completely as it's irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss. > Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here I didn't do anything of the like in the original text, but good try!
    - watwut 9d ago
      [dead]
- palata 9d ago
  "Neutrality" for a country (as per the Hague convention) basically means that you cannot help a belligerent and you have to treat the belligerents equally. So I assume that if you open your borders to all fleeing citizens, that's neutral, and if you close it to all, that's neutral as well.
pjc50 9d ago
> closing their borders to fleeing Jews. This is such a landmine topic, because most countries did this, including the UK and the US; see e.g. the MS St. Louis. This is why there are several "heroes of the resistance" that in modern parlance are "people smugglers", forging credentials and visas in order to help people escape. Today you see exactly the same hostile attitudes to non-white refugees of basically every war except Ukraine.
- LtWorf 9d ago
  It's also why Germany did the death camps. Originally their plan was just to force them to leave but most countries were not allowing them to do so.
  - rrr_oh_man 9d ago
    > Originally their plan was just to force them to leave That is 1930s pre-war Germany and Austria; and around 550k people by the most generous calculation. Yes, the world wronged them. But you cannot say death camps happened because the US didn’t hand out enough visas. After 1939, when Germany invaded Poland (home of 3-3.5m Jews) and in 1941 the USSR (home of another 1-2m Jews) no one was being forced to leave (or live) anymore. People were being killed with bullets to the head or back, and when this started to be unbecoming/too inefficient, the German state devised an industrial approach to the killing of humans.
- nephihaha 9d ago
  Despite what Hollywood says, WW2 was more to do with German militarism and expansionism than the Jewish question. The Allies were certainly willing to use pro-Jewish sentiments and some Jewish troops, but it was never presented as the main issue.
  - philipallstar 9d ago
    I think Hollywood says exactly that. Most WW2 films are about war, not the Holocaust.
nephihaha 9d ago
"Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews." That still counts as neutral, as does Sweden's activities. Switzerland interned allied airmen and was even bombed but stayed out of the war. There is a wonderful quote from the Irish parliament. The Irish government wanted to be neutral, but one of the politicians asked "but who shall we be neutral against ?" (By the way, the nature of the Irish Free State's "neutrality" remains controversial to this day, and again, I could point to examples both ways.) It is hard to think of any fully neutral countries in WW2, partly due to the large empires spanning Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Maybe certain Latin American countries, except some of them joined the war at the end and/or took in Nazi refugees like Eichmann.
Spooky23 9d ago
They walked a fine line. You can find complicity in the holocaust everywhere. The United States strictly enforced immigration quotas and turned away entire refugee ships. Legislation to address the issue and provide an exception failed in the house in 1939. Those people were returned to their deaths. After the war, the genuine shock of what was discovered by the Army was presented to imply that nobody had any idea what was happening. The Swiss also turned a blind eye to allied activity. The OSS and MI6 operated pretty blatantly and received some assistance from the Swiss authorities. The Swiss cannot claim moral superiority by any means, but it’s unfair to brand them as nazi collaborators. These issues are black and white a hundred years later and thousands of miles away, not so much when you’re surrounded.
kakacik 9d ago
Ah another week another instance of this maga level crap. Read up on [1], read up on Geneva accepting migrants way after it was clear that Switzerland will starve since it was 100% surrounded by axis. Even after federal government forbade that. Private Swiss banks accepted money from both nazis and jews alike, thats true. Sounds neutral to me. They have anonymous numbered accounts here, practice for local citizens used long before WWII. Together the reasons why it ended up as it did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campione_d%27Italia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campione_d%27Italia
palata 9d ago
There is a definition of neutrality [1][2] based on the Hague convention. [1]: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp [2]: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp

by tedggh 9d ago

embedding-shape 9d ago

Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B <> Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral. I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single country on the European continent can be considered "neutral". So maybe with this lens, Switzerland was "the most neutral" if you compare with others?

watwut 9d ago
There is a difference between someone running from persecution and someone leaving because they might be conscripted into invasion they agree with or because they dont like the economy. Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here. You could sorta a little equate Ukrainians, a little. And yes, actual historical events and motivations of past actors matter. Yes, there were multiple fully on-the-nazi side countries, Swiss were not them. That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.
- embedding-shape 9d ago
  > That does not make the comparison you made meaningful. Yeah, even when I tried my best to, apparently the labels just fire up too much emotions. I've removed the country names completely as it's irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss. > Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here I didn't do anything of the like in the original text, but good try!
  - watwut 9d ago
    [dead]
palata 9d ago
"Neutrality" for a country (as per the Hague convention) basically means that you cannot help a belligerent and you have to treat the belligerents equally. So I assume that if you open your borders to all fleeing citizens, that's neutral, and if you close it to all, that's neutral as well.

pjc50 9d ago

> closing their borders to fleeing Jews. This is such a landmine topic, because most countries did this, including the UK and the US; see e.g. the MS St. Louis. This is why there are several "heroes of the resistance" that in modern parlance are "people smugglers", forging credentials and visas in order to help people escape. Today you see exactly the same hostile attitudes to non-white refugees of basically every war except Ukraine.

LtWorf 9d ago
It's also why Germany did the death camps. Originally their plan was just to force them to leave but most countries were not allowing them to do so.
- rrr_oh_man 9d ago
  > Originally their plan was just to force them to leave That is 1930s pre-war Germany and Austria; and around 550k people by the most generous calculation. Yes, the world wronged them. But you cannot say death camps happened because the US didn’t hand out enough visas. After 1939, when Germany invaded Poland (home of 3-3.5m Jews) and in 1941 the USSR (home of another 1-2m Jews) no one was being forced to leave (or live) anymore. People were being killed with bullets to the head or back, and when this started to be unbecoming/too inefficient, the German state devised an industrial approach to the killing of humans.
nephihaha 9d ago
Despite what Hollywood says, WW2 was more to do with German militarism and expansionism than the Jewish question. The Allies were certainly willing to use pro-Jewish sentiments and some Jewish troops, but it was never presented as the main issue.
- philipallstar 9d ago
  I think Hollywood says exactly that. Most WW2 films are about war, not the Holocaust.

nephihaha 9d ago

"Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews." That still counts as neutral, as does Sweden's activities. Switzerland interned allied airmen and was even bombed but stayed out of the war. There is a wonderful quote from the Irish parliament. The Irish government wanted to be neutral, but one of the politicians asked "but who shall we be neutral against ?" (By the way, the nature of the Irish Free State's "neutrality" remains controversial to this day, and again, I could point to examples both ways.) It is hard to think of any fully neutral countries in WW2, partly due to the large empires spanning Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Maybe certain Latin American countries, except some of them joined the war at the end and/or took in Nazi refugees like Eichmann.

Spooky23 9d ago

They walked a fine line. You can find complicity in the holocaust everywhere. The United States strictly enforced immigration quotas and turned away entire refugee ships. Legislation to address the issue and provide an exception failed in the house in 1939. Those people were returned to their deaths. After the war, the genuine shock of what was discovered by the Army was presented to imply that nobody had any idea what was happening. The Swiss also turned a blind eye to allied activity. The OSS and MI6 operated pretty blatantly and received some assistance from the Swiss authorities. The Swiss cannot claim moral superiority by any means, but it’s unfair to brand them as nazi collaborators. These issues are black and white a hundred years later and thousands of miles away, not so much when you’re surrounded.

kakacik 9d ago

Ah another week another instance of this maga level crap. Read up on [1], read up on Geneva accepting migrants way after it was clear that Switzerland will starve since it was 100% surrounded by axis. Even after federal government forbade that. Private Swiss banks accepted money from both nazis and jews alike, thats true. Sounds neutral to me. They have anonymous numbered accounts here, practice for local citizens used long before WWII. Together the reasons why it ended up as it did. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campione_d%27Italia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campione_d%27Italia

palata 9d ago

There is a definition of neutrality [1][2] based on the Hague convention. [1]: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp [2]: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp