What should we think of Switzerland during ww2?

Allen Dulles was a bit of a Nazi-sympathizer himself. Him, his brother John Foster (future sec. of state), Prescott Bush (need I say more), Averill Harrimen (FDR's special envoy to Russia) all financed and conducted business with Nazi Germany companies, and tried to cover their tracks at times, and they all believed in Eugenics and held a holier than thou attitude, and they weren't very fond of Jewish people. Allen Dulles also cut some kind of deal with Karl Wolff in 1945 when he knew of the crimes committed by Wolff's SS.

 

Thing is...there wasn't actually a fence!

To repost something I posted on WW2F a while ago...

 

I am unable to make a comment on this post without being rude...so ask yourself a few hard questions and try to use your brain before hacking away on your keyboard.

 

Wonder if Patton thought of attacking through Switzerland to hit Germany in the back...?

 

Thanks and I hope the Swiss stay "bloody minded" - it served them well. Also I you are right there is only a portion of Swiss with "German" heritage. Not surprisingly the Nazis wern´t very loved there. However for big business this is no hindrance

 

You can be rude, fire away As long you have some substantiell points.....

 

Anglo-Saxon people are Germanic as well, they migrated from the Germanic areas of Angles and Saxony in the first centuries after Christ. Yes Hitler didn't want to fight Britain, he felt Britain should keep its empire and police the seas while Germany had hegemony over the continent, but at the end of the day he accepted it.

 

I do not think that playing both sides is the best definition of neutrality. More so it can be considered a way of surviving. It keeps your neutrality alive but it is not really the definition of neutrality. If you look at a definition of neutrality it will say not taking part or giving assistance in any dispute or conflict that is between to other countries. Sweden and Switzerland despite the curtain that they were hiding behind that said that they were neutral, they technically were not neutral if you considered the fact that they gave some assistance to both sides. Helping both sides is a way to make yourself think you are neutral which is something a lot of people believe in but if you're helping both sides then that is not being fully neutral.

 

You brought up a good point phylo_roadking on post #42.

 

Yup, because British didn´t want to work with Nazis, understandably. So they rejected Hitlers peace offer (I guess he made one after France fell). But even then in general even the Nazis treated eg. British or Dutch POWs way better than "eastern" ones. Eg. Dutch, Flemish, Danish and Norwegian prisoners were released often, Germans did see them as "northern" and so no ideological enemy. Not to forget some even fought in Waffen SS.

 

Noone was truly Neutral in WWII....or WWI come to that. As I noted above, the Dutch and Danes sold Germany HUGE amounts of food, agricultural produce, animal fodder in WWI. "All" that happened in WWII was that were certain strategic reason, impoinging on their "neutrality" didn't matter to Hitler.....he STILL got from them as Occupied countries what Germany would have had to pay for

It's worth taking a look at the Hague Conventions definition of Neutral It was a "moveable feast", not a third way. Look at Vichy for example; SOME nations...even full combatants like Australia...regarded it as a FULL "Neutral" and opened separate diplomatic relations with it as such - but the Americans witheld full recognition, and the British far less. Under Hague you just had to declare yourself "neutral" vis a vis a given war or belligerency. Hence the problems that might have occured if Hitler hadn't decalred war on the U.S. - the U.S. would still have been "neutral", however tenuous, in the European war!

And it was how, despite being an "ally" of the U.S. after the events of 1941 - the USSR remained Neutral vis a vis the Empire of Japan as a belligerent until it chose not to be in August 1945. Russian-flagged freighters could carry HUGE amounts of aid from the U.S. to the USSR across the Pacific, through waters controlled by the Japanese, enemy of the United States...for their war against Japan's ally Germany!!!

 

I do appreciate your insight phylo_roadking.

 

That's one possible definition but my take is it is kind of like a dual balance scale. It doesn't matter how much you put in one balance pan as long as the amount you put in the other maintains or comes close to maintaining the balance. Then there's the question of whether you are talking government or commerce or both. For instance early in WWI the US was truly neutral. The government stayed neutral longer than commerce. The latter became unbalanced due in large part to the inabiity to trade with Germany and the Central Powers.

 

Good point lwd.

 

As a principle it reads fine...

But there are a couple of problems with it.

First of all - it doesn't take into account that a "Neutral" might be under distinct threat of invasion by one party....but not the other...in a war. Sweden was vulnerable to invasion from German forces in Norway - and Switzerland was basically surrounded after June 1940. Even if it had a "hole"...a way out....to the outside world for a time via Vichy, the Germans put insurmountable pressure on them not to use it to trade with the UK.

Secondly - it doesn't take into account that there may not be anything one side or the other WANTS from a "Neutral"...look at the U.S. for instance - everyone might have wanted its industrial products - but what industrial products did IT want from them??? What did Americans want in 1940 or 1941 from Sweden or Switzerland???

Even the U.S. accepted that as a principle it couldn't work. Under the "Neutrality Acts", all trade/exports to all belligerents for the prosecution of a war was banned....a flat ban....THEN the President could have his "Exceptions List", by which he could direct that certain belligerents could be traded with

 

It also doesn't define what keeps the balance. If political considerations are taken into account, which they must be, then I still think it's viable. As for the US wanting things in 40 or 41 I don't see that impacting the defintion at all. On the other hand the key political "thing" I can see the US wanting both then and later was for those two not to join the Axis powers and of course the latter didn't want to see an official declartion the other way. Now if you measure it in terms of value of imports and exports and such achieving a situation where the pans are level is going to be almost impossible in any case. How far one pan can be above the other and still have it considered "neutral" is also a matter of some debate.

 

But that's a different issue That's about outside perception of a Neutral, and what third parties see as their part/role or not.

I was referring to the Neutrals themselves having many and various factors preventing them treating both sides in a war equally....or not treating with them to an equal extent.

Which is of course one of the major difficulties at looking at the conduct of Neutrals - which is important...and which is the most principled?

1/ how they see their OWN conduct as Neutrals - under whatever pressures; and

2/ how does the rest of the world view their conduct as Neutrals?

 

My main point was that one could be neutral without abandoning all contact with the two sides. Not that it is easy or that everyone will agree that one is truly neutral if you attempt o do so.

 

Then again...who was in a position to adjudicate on who was being truly Neutral or not - hardly either/any of the belligerents - and other Neutrals' positions would depend on how they were trading/treating with any given belligerent....

Which is why it's necessary to look at the Hague Conventions - and how few duties/responsibilities were actually put upon declared Neutrals

If anything - the burdens of Neutrality were only whatever a Neutral nation took upon itself - look at the Ireland example.

 

Well in one sense it was the belligerents whose opinion actually mattered. If they thought the boundries were being pushed too far they could always declare war and insure that the former "neutral" wasn't anymore. In a practical sense being neutral seems to have meant that the contry in consideration declared itself to be and none of the belligerants got upset enough with it to declare war and invalidate the statement unequivically. Certainly some of the actions of the US in 41 stretched the defintion of neutrality well past the point where an unbiased observer would have complained.