7 ms·

I think you are thinking too specifically. Neutrality is to appease all the rich that have stashed their fortunes. If most of the world condemned the US or Ch

I think you are thinking too specifically. Neutrality is to appease all the rich that have stashed their fortunes. If most of the world condemned the US or China for an aggressive act, I would expect them to act the same. If they take a side, they lose the fortunes of more than just Russians. Anyone who is controversial and has money in Switzerland will realize it’s no longer safe in the event the world exposes their bad deeds.

simplotek 4y ago
[flagged]
- reissbaker 4y ago
  During the Holocaust, the Swiss "neutrality" included wholesale theft of Jewish depositors bank accounts — which they finally admitted to in the 1990s but still refused to pay any of it back to the survivors until an American lawsuit forced them to — so color me unsurprised.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - omgomgomgomg 4y ago
    Not just that, they also rejected jews right at their borders beginng for asylum. And that guy Meili who exposed the scandal was ostracised and forever remained unemployable. He was not a banker either, he was a security guy in a bank. Lets not forget that the italian fascists and the nazis safely parked their looted money in switzerland. Switzerland was used as a corridor by Italy and Nazi Germany to transports "goods". Its a little known fact that the allies bombarded switzerland towards the end of ww2, a bit of a reminder for product weapons to the axis of evil as a neutral state.
    - xkcd1963 4y ago
      Schaffhausen was officially a mistake. Also please provide links to your claims
      - reissbaker 4y ago
        Switzerland rejected over 39,000 refugees, most of them Jews, and asked German authorities to stamp Jewish passports with the letter J in order to identify them to Swiss border agents. In 1942, it explicitly closed its borders to Jews entirely. Here's the AP News on the subject, since you're not aware: https://apnews.com/article/0be18d0f36c04b86d7592bc6b16f7fa6 https://apnews.com/article/0be18d0f36c04b86d7592bc6b16f7fa6
      - xkcd1963 4y ago
        [flagged]
  - holgerschurig 4y ago
    > During the Holocaust, the Swiss "neutrality" And they saved 25000 domestic and 21000 immigrated Jews. Not much ... but compared to their country size, this was more than Vichy France. In any case, why is reaching back more than 80 years relevant here? My country (Germany) did *WAY* bigger atrocities back then. From my point of view, the 80-years-ago swiss people were decent, giving the circumstances. We shouldn't forget that Switzerland was surrounded by Nazi countries or lackey countries: Hitler's Austria-Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Vichy France, occupied northern France. They did bad things, certainly. But there was also a lot of pressure involved. And guess what: Switzerland paid reparations for this, a fact that people trying to bash Swiss behavior back then are unlikely to state.
- exoque 4y ago
  >No one expects Switzerland to pick a side. They just expect their arms industry to honor their agreements and their government to be fiscally responsible and sell their retired gear back to it's manufacturers. Can you provide a link which proves that switzerland has an obligation to sell its under licence in switzerland produced tanks which still are part of its military (reserve) to anyone? Thanks.
- xkcd1963 4y ago
  Supporting Ukraine over Russia is breaking with neutrality
- holgerschurig 4y ago
  > Switzerland is instead clearly picking Russia's side by ... implementing all EU sanction packets against Russia? ... by providing financial and civilian aid to Ukraine, like money for the government, generators, medical aid, winter clothes? The aid of Switzerland isn't that large, truth be told. But, compared by GDP, it's more than Turkey helps.
- oska 4y ago
  > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
holgerschurig 4y ago
> Neutrality is to appease all the rich that have stashed their fortunes. How did you get to this conclusion? * Switzerland has neutrality since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815, more than 200 years * they weren't really rich back then * instead, big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally * later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185. * the consitution can only be changed by the electorate of Switzerland (about 6 mio people), not the government or the parliament So why would these 6 million people add / keep neutrality "to appease the rich" ? Not all swiss people are rich. In the southern french parts the risk to sink into poverty is even higher than in some parts of Germany! Maybe a not-so-swiss centric view can shed more light on your (wrong) hypothesis: In Europe Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium in the neutral camp. Are they all known to "appease the rich" ? I doubt. Except if your idea of not appeasing rich people is having a government form like Soviet Russia, GDR, or Yugoslavia.
- mr_00ff00 4y ago
  This comment feels like it’s more directed at the comment above mine than mine. I’m not implying that is where Swiss neutrality comes from, more making a counter point that IF they are staying neutral (currently) to protect fortunes then it’s not just to protect Russians. I wasn’t making a statement about its history. Banking in Switzerland I realize is fairly recent. I am not even saying that’s definitely what they are currently doing.
  - holgerschurig 4y ago
    I clearly is/was directed at you. Wasn't it you that stated the hypothesis "neutrality is to appease the rich"? Can't you see that I tried to refute this hypothesis? But maybe you have arguments to back this hypothesis?
  - spandrew 4y ago
    Your initial assertion that Swiss is neutral to make money is not accurate. Historically it was to prevent casualties in wars between France and... whoever else. This has enabled it to be the bank of anyone trying to escape prying eyes - but that is a byproduct of their neutrality; not the purpose of it.

simplotek 4y ago

[flagged]

reissbaker 4y ago
During the Holocaust, the Swiss "neutrality" included wholesale theft of Jewish depositors bank accounts — which they finally admitted to in the 1990s but still refused to pay any of it back to the survivors until an American lawsuit forced them to — so color me unsurprised.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- omgomgomgomg 4y ago
  Not just that, they also rejected jews right at their borders beginng for asylum. And that guy Meili who exposed the scandal was ostracised and forever remained unemployable. He was not a banker either, he was a security guy in a bank. Lets not forget that the italian fascists and the nazis safely parked their looted money in switzerland. Switzerland was used as a corridor by Italy and Nazi Germany to transports "goods". Its a little known fact that the allies bombarded switzerland towards the end of ww2, a bit of a reminder for product weapons to the axis of evil as a neutral state.
  - xkcd1963 4y ago
    Schaffhausen was officially a mistake. Also please provide links to your claims
    - reissbaker 4y ago
      Switzerland rejected over 39,000 refugees, most of them Jews, and asked German authorities to stamp Jewish passports with the letter J in order to identify them to Swiss border agents. In 1942, it explicitly closed its borders to Jews entirely. Here's the AP News on the subject, since you're not aware: https://apnews.com/article/0be18d0f36c04b86d7592bc6b16f7fa6 https://apnews.com/article/0be18d0f36c04b86d7592bc6b16f7fa6
    - xkcd1963 4y ago
      [flagged]
- holgerschurig 4y ago
  > During the Holocaust, the Swiss "neutrality" And they saved 25000 domestic and 21000 immigrated Jews. Not much ... but compared to their country size, this was more than Vichy France. In any case, why is reaching back more than 80 years relevant here? My country (Germany) did *WAY* bigger atrocities back then. From my point of view, the 80-years-ago swiss people were decent, giving the circumstances. We shouldn't forget that Switzerland was surrounded by Nazi countries or lackey countries: Hitler's Austria-Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Vichy France, occupied northern France. They did bad things, certainly. But there was also a lot of pressure involved. And guess what: Switzerland paid reparations for this, a fact that people trying to bash Swiss behavior back then are unlikely to state.
exoque 4y ago
>No one expects Switzerland to pick a side. They just expect their arms industry to honor their agreements and their government to be fiscally responsible and sell their retired gear back to it's manufacturers. Can you provide a link which proves that switzerland has an obligation to sell its under licence in switzerland produced tanks which still are part of its military (reserve) to anyone? Thanks.
xkcd1963 4y ago
Supporting Ukraine over Russia is breaking with neutrality
holgerschurig 4y ago
> Switzerland is instead clearly picking Russia's side by ... implementing all EU sanction packets against Russia? ... by providing financial and civilian aid to Ukraine, like money for the government, generators, medical aid, winter clothes? The aid of Switzerland isn't that large, truth be told. But, compared by GDP, it's more than Turkey helps.
oska 4y ago
> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

holgerschurig 4y ago

> Neutrality is to appease all the rich that have stashed their fortunes. How did you get to this conclusion? * Switzerland has neutrality since the Vienna Congress 1814/1815, more than 200 years * they weren't really rich back then * instead, big powers of Europe feared that Switzerland will join one of their opponents, so it was dictated to Switzerland originally * later, when Switzerland saw how the countries surrounding them got demolished again and again in each war, they actually adopted it. It is now in their constitution, article 185. * the consitution can only be changed by the electorate of Switzerland (about 6 mio people), not the government or the parliament So why would these 6 million people add / keep neutrality "to appease the rich" ? Not all swiss people are rich. In the southern french parts the risk to sink into poverty is even higher than in some parts of Germany! Maybe a not-so-swiss centric view can shed more light on your (wrong) hypothesis: In Europe Switzerland isn't the only (current) neutral country. We have Austria, Ireland and some smaller ones, like Liechtenstein. We used to have also Portugal, Sweden or Belgium in the neutral camp. Are they all known to "appease the rich" ? I doubt. Except if your idea of not appeasing rich people is having a government form like Soviet Russia, GDR, or Yugoslavia.

mr_00ff00 4y ago
This comment feels like it’s more directed at the comment above mine than mine. I’m not implying that is where Swiss neutrality comes from, more making a counter point that IF they are staying neutral (currently) to protect fortunes then it’s not just to protect Russians. I wasn’t making a statement about its history. Banking in Switzerland I realize is fairly recent. I am not even saying that’s definitely what they are currently doing.
- holgerschurig 4y ago
  I clearly is/was directed at you. Wasn't it you that stated the hypothesis "neutrality is to appease the rich"? Can't you see that I tried to refute this hypothesis? But maybe you have arguments to back this hypothesis?
- spandrew 4y ago
  Your initial assertion that Swiss is neutral to make money is not accurate. Historically it was to prevent casualties in wars between France and... whoever else. This has enabled it to be the bank of anyone trying to escape prying eyes - but that is a byproduct of their neutrality; not the purpose of it.