Now, now. Swiss law was such that good people really couldn't help the refugees. In fact Swiss law was aimed against granting asylum. (OK to trade with the Germans, however)
Read on. Interesting. Schizophrenic, perhaps?? ================================== New Swiss Law Pardons Those Who Aided Jews Agence France-Presse 2 January 2004 The New York Times GENEVA, Jan. 1 -- A new law took effect on Thursday pardoning Swiss citizens who were penalized -- even jailed -- for helping Jews escape from Nazi Germany, nearly six decades after the fact and too late for many who died with the burden of misplaced shame. Their crime was considered a violation of the neutrality of this land-locked, mountainous country bordering Germany -- a stance that disclosures over the last decade have shown was not so sacrosanct as once thought. The new law acknowledges that these so-called offenders ''acted out of altruism'' and many ''fell into total misery after their condemnation,'' according to comments by the Swiss Federal Council, or government. As of Thursday, those sentenced for having helped victims of the Nazi government can now ask to have the judgment annulled, the Swiss Justice Ministry said. They or their surviving relatives have five years to do so, for any judgment involving the period from 1933 -- when Hitler took power in Germany -- until the end of World War II in 1945. Though the aggrieved parties' court records will be cleared, they will have no claim to any financial compensation, the ministry said. According to historians, several hundred Swiss citizens lost their jobs and were fined and some were sent to prison for helping victims of Nazi oppression flee Germany or for offering them shelter in Switzerland. During World War II, Switzerland officially took in about 300,000 refugees but it turned away at least 20,000 others, most of them Jewish. Switzerland's president apologized for the country's wartime refugee policy in 1994, before the extent of its impact was fully acknowledged. A subsequent five-year inquiry into concessions that Switzerland made to survive as a neighbor of Nazi Germany showed that the government preached a form of neutrality that it did not always practice. The 600-page report, released in March, revealed that Switzerland's political and economic establishment contributed to the Holocaust and the Nazi war machine. ''The refugee policy of our authorities contributed to the most atrocious of Nazi objectives -- the Holocaust,'' said a Swiss historian, Jean-Francois Bergier, who led the inquiry. ===================== -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 5, 2004 7:54 PM To: 'Christoph Reuss'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Futurework] FT PR vs. Historical Facts (was Re: "Survivor" -- FT PR vs. Human Nature) Chris, You are too young to remember, but in the thirties lots of people were pro Nazi, because Germany seemed to be doing so well in a world racked by depression. Germans overseas were particularly supportive of Hitler. I would have expect you to have a flourishing 5th Column in Switzerland. Some 65% of the population were of German extraction. I don't think that most people were aware of the dark underside of Nazism, but the propaganda that showed Germany arising from the depression with low (no) unemployment, and all those suntanned blonde Aryans working out at every opportunity went over well in the international depression years. Of course, Jesse Owens messed up the picture a bit. So, we faced a Europe that was completely Nazi or Fascist except for Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland. And we survived - barely - with the help of the English Channel. But, Hitler wanted the British Navy so he had a reason after Russia not to attack us - particularly after losing some 1,300 planes and a lot of aircrews in the Battle of Britain. Fortunately, none of it happened. Britain held on, the US entered the war and all was lost for Hitler. Hitler became President of Germany in 1934. The war started 5 years later. Unlike armed to the teeth Switzerland, Britain and the rest of Europe didn't want war and weren't prepared for it, so they tried to make treaties of peace. Had we and the French had leaders of the caliber of George Bush, we would have stopped Hitler at the Rhineland in 1936 - but we didn't and Hitler's march began. You accuse me of "historical ignorance" but I wonder what on earth they teach you in Swiss schools. You said: " The USA "escaped fighting Hitler" for 3 years after he invaded Poland, even waited for Hitler to declare war to them, and only entered troops after watching Russia sacrifice almost 20 million of its people, when it started to look like Russia could win the war and march on to the Atlantic -- can't allow that to the evil commies!" Unbelievable nonsense - Poland was invaded in 1939. Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941 about 6 months after the invasion of Russia. That's 2 years after Poland, 6 months after Russia, but maybe you can't count. War against Japan meant war against Germany - its ally. Before actual war, there was an enormous amount of intervention by the US - particularly in the Atlantic. Also, the US sent Marines to Iceland in case Hitler decided to extend his occupation of Denmark. But, remember, when the war began in '39 - German forces totaled 2 million, while the US had only 80,000. Her first job was to build up, which thank fully it did. But, first came war in the Pacific, where in similar fashion to our war, the US suffered defeat after defeat. The importance of El Alemein was that it was our first definite victory of the war preceded by the defensive victory at Alam Halfa (we ambushed the Afrika Korp). You said: "As for the British, these heroes appeased Hitler as long as he was useful as a bulwark against communism (both inside Germany and on the continent). Appeasement only ended quickly after the Hitler-Stalin pact." Hitler became President in 1934. After a couple of years of mopping up the internal competition, he entered the Rhineland. Britain would not support a French move to throw Hitler out and he got away with it. He had 35,000 troops. The French army was 200,000 but the opportunity was lost as the Allies twittered instead of acting. The Brits and French tried to pacify Hitler because they didn't want war. (I thought you didn't want war). They wanted the Locarno Pact people to do something, or the League of Nations. They wanted to talk Hitler out of his ambitions. (As I said, they needed a Bush.) >From 1934 to war in 1939, there wasn't much time for Hitler to be a "bulwark against communism". You must have added propaganda to your history books, In fact, the west didn't trust him at all after he broke Locarno. A month after Hitler/Stalin the war began. The end of "appeasement" had nothing to do with the Pact. We were at war. Aren't you glad that appeasement was out of the question with regard to Saddam? You should know that the "British heroes" lost more dead than the US which was five times the size. The Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc) lost another 100,000 dead while you were busy making cuckoo clocks and wrapping chocolate bars. But Switzerland was doing more than that. Swiss industry was completely geared to the German war effort, You were in the same bed as the Nazis. Your exports to Germany rose from 192 million francs in 1939 to 656 million in 1942. It is almost unnecessary to mention that during the conflict, Swiss gold reserves doubled as Nazi loot was deposited in Swiss banks. I suppose it would be impolite to suggest that the gold teeth that came from Belsen and Dachau finished up in Swiss vaults. Or that while American sailors in the Pacific were being eaten by sharks in feeding frenzy, you were busy making watches for the Russian Front. Yet, you were quick to blame Sweden and Czecho for helping the Nazis. Well, they were trying to save their necks - something that you didn't need to do with your 600,000 army. Did you? Harry ******************************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 http://haledward.home.comcast.net ******************************************** -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 5:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] FT PR vs. Historical Facts (was Re: "Survivor" -- FT PR vs. Human Nature) It's a pity that Harry is so frustrated about the Swiss example disproving his ideological dogma that he thinks he must libel Switzerland with injust allegations: > Don't use a fortunate little country like Switzerland as an > example. Had the British surrendered in 1940, Hitler would have > rolled over Switzerland in15 minutes when he got around to it. > Perhaps with the acquiescence of the population two thirds of > whom are of German ancestry. Actually, 600,000 troops at the border and massive fortifications throughout Switzerland (I can show you around in Alpine bunkers etc.) made it clear to Hitler's generals that an invasion would have been way too lossy to be worth the try. Harry's racist implication about "German ancestry" (nazi genes or what?) ignores our 700-year tradition of resisting German/Austrian despots, of which Hitler was hopefully the final one. It seems that Harry's historical ignorance makes him confuse Switzerland with other small countries like Austria, Czechoslovakia or Denmark, which actually didn't bother to keep troops at the borders or even to fire a single shot when Hitler's troops came, so they were quickly occupied by Germany. Worse, Czechoslovakia supplied a third of Hitler's tanks, and "neutral" Sweden supplied 90% of the steel for Hitler's armaments after Russia quit supplying steel. Sweden also allowed Hitler's troops to march through, to occupy Norway. As for the British, these heroes appeased Hitler as long as he was useful as a bulwark against communism (both inside Germany and on the continent). Appeasement only ended quickly after the Hitler-Stalin pact. > Certainly small countries, which not only > escaped fighting Hitler, but also actually profited from the > slaughter, are probably in a good position to luxuriate in > Nannydom. The USA "escaped fighting Hitler" for 3 years after he invaded Poland, even waited for Hitler to declare war to them, and only entered troops after watching Russia sacrifice almost 20 million of its people, when it started to look like Russia could win the war and march on to the Atlantic -- can't allow that to the evil commies! The USA and Britain "actually profited from the slaughter" a lot more than CH did, and unlike CH, they were co-responsible for Hitler's rise in the first place (Dubya's grandpa etc. even funded the NSDAP) and had an active interest in getting rid of the leading technological- scientific competitor of the era. Why should CH clean up the mess that other countries had created ? (As with Saddam, Osama, Pinochet, Noriega, etc. etc., it's only fair that those who created the monster should repair the damage too.) It was expensive enough to keep 600,000 troops (of only 4 million people) at the border for 5 years, build/extend all those fortifications (incl. fighter airports in the mountains), and endure hardships (lack of food and raw materials) that the USA never had to endure. Far from "luxuriating in Nannydom"... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 1/2/2004 _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
