Switzerland and the Nazis, why
Discussion
Getting back to the Swiss, they deserve a huge amount of criticsm for their behaviour regarding the finnacial handling of German assets (both legitimate and illegitimate). However the main benefit of Swiss neutrality was the ability of the Geneva based Red Cross to operate as a neutral organisation throughout the war. Many Aliied prisoners of war were eternally grateful for the srervices the Red Cross were able to supply.
Also, it was possible for ambassadors from opposing sides to meet and discuss issues (within limits)such as prisoner welfare and repatriation.
KingH - I don't think "Hedging your bets" came into Dev's way of thinking. Once the Americans came into the war it was fairly obvious that Germany couldn't win. The only question was "when" the war would end, rather than who would win it.
Also, it was possible for ambassadors from opposing sides to meet and discuss issues (within limits)such as prisoner welfare and repatriation.
KingH - I don't think "Hedging your bets" came into Dev's way of thinking. Once the Americans came into the war it was fairly obvious that Germany couldn't win. The only question was "when" the war would end, rather than who would win it.
Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 13th October 13:00
Sweden was another neutral country that avoided invasion. Although they were largely a collaborator with Germany much like Switzerland they were essentially forced into it under threat of invasion. They preferred to remain neutral and continue to trade and make money than to get invaded and lose everything, later as Germany started losing the war, they were able to be more resistant to german demands, as was Switzerland (They would shoot down German aircraft that invaded their airspace, ironically using German supplied aircraft).
Finland also was neutral, although partially and very quietly supplied by Britain, until it was invaded by Russia, forcing them into collaboration with the Germans as they then had a common enemy. So then Britain could no longer support Finland as they were also supporting Russia as well!
It all gets very, very messy.
Finland also was neutral, although partially and very quietly supplied by Britain, until it was invaded by Russia, forcing them into collaboration with the Germans as they then had a common enemy. So then Britain could no longer support Finland as they were also supporting Russia as well!
It all gets very, very messy.
There were other neutral countries who were invaded when it suited the Germans eg Belgium and Norway. Also Britian occupied Iceland to fend off potential German intentions.
Both Britain and Germany flouted Norwegian neutrality and eventually both countries invaded.
Declaration of neutrality in WW2 seemed to only be effective if the warring nations had no intentions in that area. Like the OP I have often wondered about Switzerland.
Both Britain and Germany flouted Norwegian neutrality and eventually both countries invaded.
Declaration of neutrality in WW2 seemed to only be effective if the warring nations had no intentions in that area. Like the OP I have often wondered about Switzerland.
Edited by phlap on Saturday 13th October 13:40
CIS121 said:
.................... My great grandfather had a farm near Limerick and was involved in this. My Grandfather was always happy to talk about it when I was a kid. His father did it partly through hatred of the English and partly for the money. He told me that if I'd been through what the English did to them, ..........................
What's with this "English" thing. It really boils my piss when the Irish and the rest of the World for that matter want to have a poke, they always quote the "English. There was a disproportionate number of Scots in the Black and Tans.
Edited by Saddle bum on Saturday 13th October 13:58
Eric Mc said:
The Swiss operated Messerschmitt Bf-109Es.
The Swedish Air Force (as is still the case) was mainly equipped with home grown designs.
IIRC, the Swiss got the 109's from the Germans in exchange for agreeing to destroy some secret equipment on a Bf110 that had crashed on their land.The Swedish Air Force (as is still the case) was mainly equipped with home grown designs.
Saddle bum said:
What's with this "English" thing. It really boils my piss when the Irish and the rest of the World for that matter want to have a poke, they always quote the "English.
Hatred of the English goes back to the Potato Famine - where the Irish blamed the English for not doing enough to help.Edited by Saddle bum on Saturday 13th October 13:58
Without wanting to delve too deep into Irish/British history - England's "involvement" in running Ireland really goes back to the Norman "invasion" of ireland in 1169. Following the King of Leinster's (Diarmuid McMurragh) victory over the King of Munster (Rory O'Connor) with the aid of a few thousand Welsh Norman mercenaries, Irish noblemen and clan leaders began to see that it was in their interest to pledge allegiance to their Irish/Norman overlords, including pledging alegiance to their ruler, the King of England. From that point onwards, Irish/English relationships - and resentments - were intertwined.
In 1801, when Ireland lost its own parliament, resentment grew even more and peaked with the disaster of the potato famines (note the plural - there were three famines in all). Irish peasants subsisted on potatoes not out of choice, but because their Anglo/Irish landlords would not allow them access to the other crops grown on the estates they were working on. Those crops (barley, wheat etc) were for commercial purposes only and could not be given away for "free" to the farm labourers, even though they were dying in their thousands.
Up until the 1840s, the British Army was 1/3 Irish, but from the mid 1840s onwards the numbers of Irishmen voluntarilly "taking the king's shilling" began to decline.
In 1801, when Ireland lost its own parliament, resentment grew even more and peaked with the disaster of the potato famines (note the plural - there were three famines in all). Irish peasants subsisted on potatoes not out of choice, but because their Anglo/Irish landlords would not allow them access to the other crops grown on the estates they were working on. Those crops (barley, wheat etc) were for commercial purposes only and could not be given away for "free" to the farm labourers, even though they were dying in their thousands.
Up until the 1840s, the British Army was 1/3 Irish, but from the mid 1840s onwards the numbers of Irishmen voluntarilly "taking the king's shilling" began to decline.
Eric Mc said:
Getting back to the Swiss, they deserve a huge amount of criticsm for their behaviour regarding the finnacial handling of German assets (both legitimate and illegitimate). However the main benefit of Swiss neutrality was the ability of the Geneva based Red Cross to operate as a neutral organisation throughout the war.
I believe that Swiss involvement in WW2 is a hotly debated subject in Switzerland at the moment.biglepton said:
drybeer said:
That being said Ireland also declared neutrality - and was also not invaded...
Do you not think that the fact that Britain was between Ireland and the Germans may have had a tiny bit to do with that? Mind you, De Valera was practically a Nazi anyway, so why invade?Wiki:
Some historians have argued[19] that Irish neutrality was the best tactic for the Allies too. It was believed that Ireland, because of its small army and exposed coast, would have been a weak link for the Allies, and would have stretched Allied armies too thinly, while making Ireland more of a Nazi invasion target. In contrast, as a neutral state, a Nazi invasion risked infuriating Irish America and so possibly increasing pressure from the powerful Irish lobby for the United States to join the war. De Valera's calculation appeared to be that, in the earliest days of the war, neutrality could offer more protection from a German invasion than joining the Allies. And in turn, the absence of an attack on Ireland would help the United Kingdom, because it would mean that they would be fighting on one flank (the UK's east coast) rather than facing a Nazi pincer attack, from west (through Ireland) and east.
Nonsense - they didn't. When I was a kid we still had our blackout curtains in our Dublin house.
What's more, because of the Dublin blackout, the city was inadvertantly bombed by the Luftwaffe. A Heinkel He111 dropped a stick of bombs across the North Strand area of Dublin in May 1941 killing over 30 people.
In the Belfast Blitz of 1940/41, Dublin fire engines regularly raced northwards to assist the Belfast Fire Brigade - thereby exposing the "neutral" Dublin firement to the same dangers as their Belfast counterparts.
What's more, because of the Dublin blackout, the city was inadvertantly bombed by the Luftwaffe. A Heinkel He111 dropped a stick of bombs across the North Strand area of Dublin in May 1941 killing over 30 people.
In the Belfast Blitz of 1940/41, Dublin fire engines regularly raced northwards to assist the Belfast Fire Brigade - thereby exposing the "neutral" Dublin firement to the same dangers as their Belfast counterparts.
69elan+2 said:
Irish said:
Wiki:
... Irish neutrality was the best tactic for the Allies too.
So is this why they still left all thier lights on at night?... and enable the German Bombers to use it as a beacon to find Manchester & Liverpool ... Irish neutrality was the best tactic for the Allies too.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff