William Tyler
Swiss Neutrality
William Tyler - Swiss Neutrality
- Thanks very much indeed. So, hello everyone. Where I am sat, it’s dark and miserable. I hope it’s a a better day from where you are all listening from. Now, when I started thinking about what I was going to do when Trudy said, “Well, could you do two historical talks on Switzerland?” The first, which I did last week on the Reformation, was a fairly easy subject to choose because Switzerland was really at the centre point of the Protestant Reformation in Europe. And then I thought about the second one, and it seemed to me that it would be interesting to think about Swiss neutrality in relation to the two world wars of the 20th century, in particular, the Second World War where questions of how Switzerland really interpreted its neutrality have caused controversy ever since. But having then sat down to prepare this last week, the subject to neutrality seemed even more relevant in the light of the United Nations, well, fill in the gap. The United Nations failure, really is probably the word in the face of the attack on Israel by Hamas, the failure to adopt what all of us would think was the right stance. And it occurred to me that the United Nations today is much like the League of Nations in the interwar years and so that raised issues about neutrality. There’d already been criticism of the United Nations in terms of, or not criticism so much as the definition of neutrality is no longer what it was given the support that NATO has been given to Zelensky against Russian aggression.
And all of that seemed to come together and so I hope in telling the story today, I’m going to be able to get you thinking about neutrality, arguing perhaps afterwards with your friends or even with yourself, and certainly arguing with me, as well as giving you some historical background, which I guess most of you probably don’t know. None of us I guess ever studied Swiss history at school, and if we did, we are unlikely to have studied Swiss history in the Second World War. I’m not sure what the education curriculum in history is in Israel. That would be the only place I can think of which might teach Swiss Second World War history, but if as any Israelis listening, then they can put me straight afterwards. So let me begin by saying neutrality or the situation of being neutral is easy to understand in the case of nations. It means that a nation state does not take sides in either a political or in a military conflict. Now, political or military conflict that neither of those things hold today. Political Switzerland isn’t politically neutral anymore. Military, well, is NATO military neutral in terms of Ukraine? By saying that I’m not suggesting for one moment that either Switzerland or NATO are incorrect or morally wrong because all these issues relate back not just to what the law says, but what justice and morality say. Now, can I share something with you? When I read law at Oxford in the early 1960s, the second World War was a very present thing in the minds of some of the tutors. And the professor of constitutional law, a great man called Wade, said to us, giving a lecture on the difference between justice, morality, and law said, “You are the first generation I’ve really taught that I don’t have to argue this for so long because you all know what Nazi Germany was.”
The claim at Nuremberg is that they were following the law. Yes, but that law was not right. It wasn’t justice, it wasn’t moral. And as Professor Wade said, justice and morality trump law. It’s an interesting way of looking at it, but in my view, a totally correct way and I’ve carried that with me through all the years since. But although I’ve said neutrality is a simple thing to understand, and it is, and you would all say, “Oh yeah, we all know what neutrality is, don’t be so stupid.” Yes, but when you delve in a little bit closer, dig a little bit more, there are very many grey areas in this issue of neutrality. I’ve mentioned already the case of NATO or the individual nation states of NATO like Britain and like the US who have given enormous amount of support, not only in war material, but in actually training, actually training Ukrainians in the use of some of the war material like tanks and aircraft supplied. Now, we are not neutral when it comes to the politics of NATO, but is that interference a war stance? Putin would say it was. Putin’s still alive, of course. Putin would say it was a war stance. It’s which side of the political divide that divides the world you are. And we of course would strongly deny that in the West. Evan Andrews in an article published on History.com entitled, “Why is Switzerland a Neutral Country?” Says this, “Why is Switzerland a neutral country?” He says, “The earliest moves towards Swiss neutrality date 1515.” That’s over 500 years ago, half a millennium ago. “When the Swiss Confederacy suffered a devastating loss of the French in battle. Following its defeat, the Swiss abandoned its expansionist policies and looked to avoid future conflict in the interest of self-preservation.” Why self-preservation? Because it’s been surrounded by large nations. In modern times, by Germany, by France, and by Italy.
Moreover, these Swiss themselves are German Swiss, French Swiss, and Italian Swiss. So if they’re going to live in harmony with each other in the country we call Switzerland, then they have to adopt a policy of neutrality, or else when war comes, they’re dragged onto the side of Italy or France or Germany. Andrews goes on to say this. “It was an Napoleonic wars that truly sealed Switzerland’s place as a neutrals nation. Switzerland was invaded by France in 1798, and it was later made a satellite of Bonaparte’s empire, forcing it to compromise its neutrality.” It didn’t choose to be part of Napoleon’s empire, it was dragged into it. “But after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, something different happened. At the Congress of Vienna 1815, 1816, the major countries of Western Europe, which included now a un-Bonapartist France, the major countries signed a declaration affirming Switzerland’s, quote, "perpetual neutrality,” end quote. And according to, as it were, the set text about Swiss neutrality, that perpetual neutrality has been in existence ever since 1815. We will take exception to that later in my talk. Swiss neutrality is written into the Swiss Constitution and it’s given professional practical form by a professional army supported by a civilian army, a civilian reserve. Now the army is never to take and hasn’t taken offensive action. It’s there to take defensive action, that is to secure its borders against well, against Germany or France or Italy, or any combination of the three. This form of neutrality has been given the name armed neutrality. In other words, it doesn’t mean there’s no army. It means the army is merely and wholly defensive, armed neutrality, to protect the neutrality of Switzerland. And it’s easy to see why the Swiss adopted it.
I’ve said because it’s surrounded Germany, Italy, France, and because, as I’ve also said, Swiss are German Swiss or French Swiss or Italian Swiss. And this policy has not only been made possible by the presence of a people’s army, if you like to express it like that, but because of the geographical nature of Switzerland itself, it is not a country that a military power would wish to fight in. It isn’t in any degree, it is perhaps the least likely country anyone would want to fight in, in the whole of Europe because of its mountainous nature. So 1815 establishes perpetual neutrality. 100 years later, Europe enters the First World war, the first great European war since Napoleonic times. So how is Switzerland going to deal with this new challenge to its neutrality? Well, in fact, both Germany and the allies responded to its neutrality by respecting it. And in the history of Switzerland, which is on my blog this week or last week, I’ve added books. You can look up the books. This is a “Concise History of Switzerland,” by Church and Head. They write this. “Swiss neutrality rested in part on support from the competence, both diplomatic and military. On the one hand, neutrality was strongly supported by Germany in an effort to offer the outrage caused in Switzerland by Germany’s destruction of the town of Lu Van. The allies likewise undertook to respect Swiss neutrality. Emboldened by this, the Swiss government as early as November 1914, lent its support to a peace initiative, but this came to nothing, nor did ideas of trying to create a neutral block come to fruition.” Now that’s important because there were moves to create a neutral block. As you may well remember, during the Cold War led by Tito of Yugoslavia, that too failed. Neutrality isn’t an easy thing to win on. People tend to veer one way or the other and to ignore the middle path. There’s something that puts people off and nations off that middle path. Switzerland had no choice because of the two reasons we’ve said. It’s the nature of being surrounded and the nature of its own population.
They had no choice. So they started in World War I with an advantage. They were seen by both sides to be not worth entering into, not worth conquering, if you like. Hitler’s view of neutrality was quite different. When he referred to Belgium and Dutch neutrality in 1940, he said, “We don’t take any notice of it.” So what is being said here in the first World War by Church and Head in their history of the history of Switzerland, what they’re saying is that Swiss neutrality was only maintained because the warring parties agreed to maintain it. However, that raised problems for the government in Switzerland, and again, I refer to Church and Head’s book. “Neutrality was tested internally in Switzerland.” Internally, externally, the two warring parties have agreed. “Internally by the emergence of what was called the graben or fossen between the language communities.” That’s a posh way of saying the gulf. The gulf between the German Swiss and the French and Italian Swiss. Remember, the Italians were on the allied side in World War I. “Underlying pre-war tensions were rapidly exacerbated by the war. Generally speaking, German speakers sympathise with the central powers, Germany and Austria, thanks to the influence of immigration from Germany to Switzerland and admiration for German military prowess and culture. Many also felt that France was falling apart, not untrue, and that the Germans were bound to win, which made it wise to be on the winning side. French and later Italian speakers were more sympathetic to the liberal allies, to the extent that 7,000 Swiss actually fought for the French.” Many of them were French foreign legionaries or ex-French foreign legionaries. Large numbers of Swiss, because they’re neutral, doesn’t mean to say they’re pacifists. Large numbers of Swiss, French Swiss, enrolled with the French Foreign Legion and they left Switzerland to fight for France.
That created a problem for the Swiss government. Now, the Swiss government held it together in many respects quite brilliantly by saying, “Look, we cannot get involved because if we do, we will collapse as a country. Not because we’re invaded by France or by Germany, but because we all split ourselves. The Confederacy will be over. We shall split into German Switzerland, French Switzerland, and Italian Switzerland, and they will simply go off to the major powers of Germany, France, and Italy and that is not what we Swiss want and haven’t wanted since 1515, and nor have we wanted since 1815 in terms of what’s been acceptable across the whole of Europe.” Perpetual, remember Versailles, perpetual neutrality is what they said. There was another problem, the Swiss government. During the First World War, its height, they had quarter the million men in arms in the Swiss Army. They weren’t paid properly, they were given pocket money. That means that their families suffered. They worked on the land, it’s largely agricultural, and they weren’t there to work the land. It created real tensions. They had problems with desertion, for example. Hardly surprising. And anyhow, if you are guarding a border, it’s boring if no one turns up. One historian said all they had to deal with was poachers. Well, not entirely true, but largely true. So that was a further problem that the Swiss government faced. Church and Head write as a summary of all of this, the following. They say this. “The government had not handled war conditions well in Switzerland, partly because of the innate conservatism it shared with much of mainstream society. This was increasingly exacerbated by the fear of Bolshevikism.” Remember, the Bolshevik revolution happens in Russia in the middle of the war in 1917.
And remember, Lenin is in Switzerland when he’s caught on the hop by the February revolution against the Czar and goes, thanks to Germany, in a seal train from Switzerland to St. Petersburg. “This was increasingly exacerbated by the fear of Bolshevikism presented by the Russian Revolution. All this had both immediate and political effects and even more serious medium term implications for Switzerland. Worsening class divisions and economic pressures exploded at the end of the war in 1918, causing a dramatic social upheaval. The forces of conservatism managed to overcome a general strike, but had to concede proportional representation leading to a new era in Swiss political relations. At the same time, the country moved away from absolute neutrality by joining the League of Nations.” And moreover, the League of Nations headquarters was cited in the Swiss city of Geneva. So joining the League of Nations is the first step that the Swiss take away from the neutrality agreed in 1815. No one is saying that was wrong. All I’m saying is that that makes it less neutral, particularly when Germany is outside, or when Hitler finally takes Germany out of the League of Nations and Switzerland is inside, then it is diplomatically and politically, one could argue, not neutral. Military neutrality separate. Remember, at the very beginning I said make a distinction between diplomatic and political neutrality and military neutrality. Switzerland had, though not a participant, suffered enormous changes, not least social changes, in the postwar period caused by the First World War. They had both in the interwar period, communist and fascist groups within, within Switzerland. The fascist groups were largely German.
The communist groups spread across all three, Germany, German Swiss, French, and Italian Swiss. But then comes World War II, and Swiss neutrality is challenged once again, as the clouds gathered during 1939, Switzerland again prepared to defend its neutrality diplomatically and to defend its borders. In other words, militarily, armed neutrality, The key phrase to understand Swiss neutrality. At its peak, the Swiss Army in World War II numbered 850,000 out of a population of 4.2 million. 850,000 out of a population of just over 4 million, meaning almost every male capable of fighting was called up. Now, this did have an effect, an army of that size, well-trained, and the Swiss were well-trained, and they were strongly committed and had been for centuries, as we’ve seen, to the defence of their land is not a country that you would choose to invade. Now, the allies, well, first of all weren’t in a position to invade, but they weren’t really particularly wishing to invade Switzerland because there was nothing to be gained. You certainly wouldn’t want to fight Germany in Swiss, in the Swiss geography, that would be dreadful. Germany, on the other hand, had some reasons for why it wanted to take Switzerland. A, because Hitler had the dream of, as it were, world conquest, the old Weltpolitik of Kaiser Wilhelm. And also because Switzerland was producing war material. Now, the war material, the Swiss continued to sell to Nazi Germany during the course of the war because they wanted goods in return from Germany. It was a quid pro quo. They maintained that this was not breaching its neutrality. We’re back to the Ukraine question.
Are we breaching neutrality in the war between Ukraine and Russia by supplying war material? It’s no different a question in World War II. Because of the size of its army, if Switzerland was going to be conquered by Germany, it would require a huge amount of effort, men, and the potential loss of a great deal of men. Once the Germans decided in ‘41 to loose operation Barbarossa on Russia, they no longer bothered about Switzerland. It was an insignificant place. And those of you read the blurb I wrote and Lockdown sent it, you will remember Gurber’s comment. The the Germans didn’t think it was worth it. And Switzerland isn’t going to be a stab in the back while Germany is defeating Russia as the German’s hoped. So let’s sort of pause there and think about World War II. And I want to read you two things from a book. It’s right at the end of the book by Stephen Halbrook called “Target Switzerland.” Again, it’s on my blog, you can see it and get the details. And Halbrook writes this. There’s two paragraphs. They’re in a sense quite separate. The first paragraph reads like this. “As so often in the history of World War II, the final verdict belongs to Winston Churchill.” These are Churchill’s words. “Of all the neutrals, Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction. She has been a democratic state, standing for freedom in self-defense among her mountains and in thought in spite of race.” Large number of Germans at the time, about 60% of the Swiss were German Swiss. “Thought in spite of race, largely on our side.” Stephen Halbrook writes, the final paragraph having quoted Churchill. “For centuries, Switzerland has symbolised the ideals of individual rights, direct democracy, federalism, and armed strength for defence, never for aggression. She has been neutral in military conflicts, but was never morally neutral.”
Ah, never morally neutral. “Her people have always sided with freedom. Swiss traditions were put to the supreme test during World War II and were vindicated.” Now, this book was first issued, let me check its date of issue. It was first issued in 1998. Since then, historians have pursued various issues regarding Switzerland’s actions during the Second World War and no longer could a historian write that. The verdict no longer entirely washes. Now those who know me well know I’m a huge fan of Churchill. And you could, in the light of what we know about Switzerland in World War II now, be highly critical of Churchill, but when Churchill said that it was different. One of the things that annoys me about woke historians is they refuse to take things into context. And Churchill said what he said before we knew the details of what Switzerland had done. And Halbrook is a perfectly proper historian, writing in 1998, was also not fully aware of the things that had been and were being discovered by historians of Switzerland in World War II. Now that we know more, Swiss neutrality becomes even more controversial during World War II. Thus, it raises questions in the late 20th and in our 21st century about the position of neutrality. The core of the argument against Switzerland, think of it as a sort of debate. So if you are arguing against Switzerland in World War II, you would choose to use the word that it acted immorally. Now, remember just now, it was said that Switzerland acted morally, moral neutrality. I’m suggesting to put the case for immorality.
I wish we had a whole weekend together and there was merely sort of 30 of us and I divide you into two lots and 15 of you would argue against Switzerland’s position in World War II, and 15 of you will be asked to argue for Switzerland’s position. That would make it absolutely fascinating. The argument against the Swiss revolves around three core issues. First, the supplying of war material to Germany. Secondly, Nazi gold deposited in Switzerland. And thirdly, the closure of its borders to refugees, especially to Jewish refugees fleeing from Nazi horror. Those are the three criticisms of the Swiss and their so-called neutrality. In previous centuries, the Swiss, as Laura Carr writes in History is Now Magazine, and Laura Carr says this. “The Swiss had taken in Hugos, French Protestants, that had fled from France in the 16th century, same as Britain took them in, and was in asylum for many liberals, socialists, and anarchists from all over Europe in the 19th century.” And remember, it was one of those anarchists taken into Switzerland who ended up knifing to death Franz Joseph’s wife on the shores of Lake Geneva. She goes on to say, “In fear of angering Hitler and prompting an invasion.” This is in 1939, particularly in 1940 and early '41. “In fear of agonising angering Hitler and prompting an invasion, Swiss border regulations were tightened. They did establish internment camps, which housed 200,000 refugees of which 20,000 were Jewish. Importantly though, the Swiss government taxed the Swiss Jewish community for any Jewish refugees they allowed to enter the country.” What? In 1866, Swiss Jews were given full citizenship rights in 1866. And here in 1940, Swiss Jews are taxed. Only the Swiss Jews are taxed to pay for the Jewish refugees whom Switzerland has taken in. This is getting very close to antisemitism. In 1942 alone, over 30,000 Jews were denied entry into Switzerland. They were left in Nazi-controlled territory. 1942, the Swiss closed their borders to Jewish refugees. I’ll read on a little bit.
“That is not the only controversy when it comes to Swiss border control. It was the chief of the Swiss Federal Police, a man called Dr. Heinrich and Rothman, who proposed the idea of making Jewish passports, of marking Jewish passports with a J, and which became an important method of discrimination adopted by the Nazis. The Swiss government wanted to know and control the amount of Jews entering Switzerland and it led to a measure that made fleeing from the Nazis even harder for Jews.” When I was principal at the City Lit, there were lots of Jews who’d escaped Nazi Europe or had come after the war and there was a lovely elderly couple whom I knew who were Austrian and had been in Auschwitz and they had survived and they were coming to classes. And in the early 1990s, the inner London Education Authority sent out a form that every single member of staff and all my thousands and thousands of students had to fill in. It was an ethnicity form. Easy for me, white British, Christian or whatever. But they were Jews who’d suffered under Nazism. And they came to me in tears and said, they knew me well because we often spoken and they came to classes I taught and they said, “William, we can’t fill in this form, but it says we’ve got to.” And I knew all about it. And they said, I knew why, but they said, “Let’s just show you.” And they showed me the marks on their arm and they said, “You do understand?” I said, “Of course I understand.” And I just tore up their papers. There was no way that they should ever been asked by the Education Authority for London to fill in such a form. It was disgraceful and I wasn’t having any of it. There were no repercussions on me. I didn’t expect there to be. Well, they would’ve found themselves in deep trouble had they. So this J business in Switzerland, I understand.
And I’m sure all of you listening understand even more than I understand about how dreadful, a dreadful a thing it was. There’s two PSs to this story. On the 8th of March, 1995, the Swiss Government made an official apology for the involvement with the Nazi Party, in particular in developing their role in developing the J stamp. And the second PS is Switzerland’s treatment of Jewish refugees has been criticised by scholars of the Holocaust. In 1999, and this comes from the Wikipedia article, “Switzerland During the World Wars.” “In 1999, an international panel of historians declared that Switzerland was quote, 'Guilty of acting as an accomplished to holocaust when it refused to accept many thousands of fleeing Jews and instead sent them back to almost certain annihilation at the hands of the Nazis.’” Hardly, hardly moral neutrality. Military neutrality, yes. Moral neutrality, far from it. Neutrality isn’t an easy thing. It’s not easy to explain in theory. It’s not easy to explain if we were acting in practise. To look at Switzerland is the supreme example ‘cause Switzerland’s always held up, you know, chocolate, cheese, cuckoo clocks and neutrality. But the study of Switzerland in this period leads us, I argue, to question that. So that was one issue. The next issue is gold. A rather horrendous German called Bruno Melmer, who was an SS Officer, ran what was the SS Bank with gold. SS Bank. The gold comes from concentration camps and extermination camps. It may be monetary gold, it may be objects in gold, and most horrendously of all, it was dental gold, taking gold fillings. $2.5 million at least, was banked by Melmer in the SS Bank and the Swiss bought in the end over $40 million worth from Germany of this gold and other gold. Complicit? You judge. The New York Times wrote in an article called “The Not So Neutral Swiss of World War II” “Money, gold, paintings, and other items that belong to Holocaust victims were deposited in Swiss banks by the Nazis or by the victims themselves during Hitler’s rule.
The extent of these deposits and their ultimate fate still remains unclear.” The Swiss hands are covered, it seems to me, in Jewish blood, both literally by refusing entry to Jewish refugees. And secondly, in being an outlet for Nazi gold, large amounts of which were taken from Jews in all the forms, from Jewish businesses down to gold fillings of teeth. So Switzerland has to answer for its money laundering, for its antisemitism, and finally for its links with Germany in other ways. This is taken from an article on Wikipedia called “Switzerland During the World Wars.” “A crucial rail link through Vichy France was severed in 1942, leaving Switzerland completely surrounded by Germany and the Axis. Switzerland relied on trade for half its food and essentially all of its fuel. However, the Swiss controlled vital TranzAlpine rail tunnels between Germany and Italy and possessed considerable electrical generating capacity that was relatively safe from air attack. Most important exports during the war were precision machine tools, watches, dual bearings used in bomb sites, electricity and dairy products. Until 1936, a Swiss Franc was the only remaining major freely convertible currency in the world and both the allies and the Germans sold large amounts of gold to the Swiss National Bank. Between 1940 and '45, the German Reich Bank sold 1.3 million francs were approximately 18 billion francs adjusted for inflation worth of gold to Swiss banks to exchange for Swiss francs and other foreign currency, which were used to buy strategically important raw materials like tungsten and oil from other neutral countries. Hundreds of millions of francs worth of this gold was monetary gold plundered from the central banks of occupied countries.
A total of 581,000 francs of Melmer’s gold taken from Holocaust victims in Eastern Europe was sold to Swiss banks.” It just gets worse. From a Swiss point of view of neutrality, the relationship with Germany in the war is close. The other side arguing against me might well say, “Yes, but what about Roosevelt’s lend lease system to Britain who could not have survived without it?” Surely that wasn’t American neutrality. Surely that wasn’t being neutral. These are really difficult moral questions. In my view, the question is answered very negatively towards Swiss morality. There may be people who think that’s too harsh a judgement . Neutrality is, as I said at the very beginning, a difficult topic. This isn’t easy. Before I get into further detail over these moral issues, let me explain the position Switzerland found itself in by 1940. Switzerland had a pro-Nazi German fascist Swiss Party, a German Swiss Fascist Party who leaned towards Germany and its Italian ally and Austria, and pro-ally Swiss, the French Swiss, who leaned towards the allies. And those divisions were not fixed ones. There were Germans who supported the allies. There were French who supported Germany. There were Italians who supported the allies. It’s not simple, by no means. Switzerland also faced economic pressures, which we’ve just been reading about. They got cut off from France and they needed, they needed food. Is that a reason for supplying raw material? By 1941, the Swiss had largely turned against the Nazis. That is with the invasion of Russia, which had saved Switzerland because it had the Germans not invaded Russia, they would’ve invaded Switzerland, but that’s a bit of nonsense really 'cause they were always going to invade Russia.
The scales began to fall from the Swiss eyes in 1941, but it did not stop them taking Nazi gold, it did not stop them providing war material, and it did not stop them closing borders to Jews. I wanted to read this bit from Church and Head’s “History of Switzerland.” If I may find the right page. I believe we will get to reading it. “Concern about Nazi attitudes affected the Swiss policy on refugees by reinforcing ingrained conservative attitudes towards foreigners. The authorities persisted in a hedgehog attitude, treating refugees as a threat, partly because they were aware that taking too many would also get them in bad odour with Berlin. Even a year after news of the Holocaust had reached Switzerland, Police Chief Rothman ordered the frontiers close and all illegals deported. Minister von Steiger, both German and Swiss, Minister von Steiger, then infamously declared, "The boat is full,” to justify the policy. Those of you who are British listening to me might want to consider that in the light of the present government’s policy to towards refugees and coming across from continental Europe. What did all this mean for the Jews in Switzerland? In 1939, the Jewish population was approximately 18,000 out of 4.2 million. During the war, something like 300,000 refugees came, of only of which 10%, sorry, which only 30,000 were Jewish. Moral, immoral. Neutral, or not quite so neutral. Neutral because they had no choice to be but neutral. Dealing so harshly with refugees for fear of a German invasion. This comes from History Now Magazine saying what the Germans thought.
“A good way to summarise Hitler’s reasoning not to invade Switzerland is simply risk versus reward. At the prospect of a German invasion, the Swiss improved and invested heavily in their national renown, the Swiss National Defence Policy. Along with the tough terrain of modern machinery, this didn’t make the Swiss a particularly easy target. Not only was the risk high, the reward wasn’t tremendously great either. Switzerland and Germany already had a beneficial trading partnership.” Morality of the Swiss again. “Which helped Germany’s war effort. Additionally, the neutral, but infamous Swiss banks made Switzerland useful to the Nazis.” Reinforcing what I’ve just said. “There’s little doubt that once the allies have been defeated, Hitler would’ve mobilised an attack on Switzerland. The invasion was named Operation Tannenbaum.” And he had a for Switzerland standing by. Neutrality meant nothing to Hitler. And had Britain fallen, he would’ve invaded Switzerland, and had Britain fallen, he would’ve invaded Ireland, who was actually quite pro-Nazi. I told some of you, at least, that when I visited Auschwitz, the book was open as you go in at the page on Ireland, and the Nazis had listed how many Jews there were in Ireland. Ireland would’ve fallen as a neutral country, Switzerland would’ve fallen. So were the Swiss right in doing what they did? Did they protect the people they had, including their own Swiss Jewish community? That’s what the other side would argue against me. These are not easy questions. And one of the war itself, both the Germans and the allies invaded Swiss airspace, violated Swiss airspace. Always they said it was an accident and the Swiss were always prepared to put it down as an accident. There were skirmishes both on the German and the Italian border with German and Italian troops, which the Swiss army had to resist. This is not like World War I.
This Switzerland was in a much more precarious position. Those who would want to argue against my own argument of the immorality of Swiss neutrality, they have no choice. In February, this is a story. Wait for the end. There’s a very good quote at the end, which I really adore. I’m terribly sorry the for Americans with this quote, but it’s too good to miss. “In February, 1945, 18 Swiss civilians were killed by allied bombs dropped over Steinhamrom, Vos and Rofs. Arguably the most notorious incident came on the 4th of March, '45 when Bal and Zurich were accidentally bombed by Americans. The attack on Bal’s railway station led to the destruction of a passenger train, but no casualties were reported. A B24 liberator aircraft dropped its bombload over Zurich, destroying two buildings and killing five civilians. The crew believed that they were attacking Freiberg in Germany. The historian John Helmich points out, 'The American Pilot Navigator in choosing a target of opportunity, missed the marshalling yard they were aiming for, missed the city they were aiming for, and even missed the country they were aiming for.’” I’m sorry, I really shouldn’t have read that. I did find that an amusing, you’ve got to find something amusing in what is no doubt tonight for me, tonight a grim story. This is a grim story. So Switzerland survived the war. Is Swiss neutrality secure? It didn’t join the United Nations as it joined the League of Nations. That maybe a plus for Swiss neutrality. In 2002, Switzerland did join the United Nations. In 2011, Switzerland registered for a seat on the Security Council.
They had never registered for one before on the Security Council. In 2022, Switzerland imposed sanctions following EU guidelines on Putin’s Russia, and that including Russian bank accounts in Switzerland. Neutral? Morally right? Different question. It also had Swiss observers working for the United Nations overseas, not military, but observers. Neutral? It remains outside of NATO, and of course it remains outside of the European Union, but in relationship to the sanctions imposed by the EU, it followed the EU. Neutral? You tell me. Now, I come to, I’ve got just time to come to my final point. This is from published in the United States Institute of Peace about the Ukraine situation. It’s worth reading two paragraphs. “A paradigm shook occurred after World War II and the establishment of the United Nations. With its roots in the Kellogg-Briand Treaty of 1928, the UN Charter provides a university accepted prohibition on wars of aggression and demands that member states settle conflicts peacefully.” And of course does not apply, however, members of the UN may say it does to the situation between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Why? Because it’s not between two nations. It’s between a nation and a terrorist group of the very worst sort. It doesn’t cover it. “Article 51 protects the right of nations to act in individual, collective self-defense.” This is of course, absolutely correct and that is the position of Israel today. “Within this new normative framing, international armed conflict only occurs between aggressors and defenders. All other forces only legitimate when conducted with Security Council authorization, blah, blah, blah.” In other words, when the UN send troops in like they did in Kosovo. “As a result, over the past 75 years, the law of neutrality has lost prominence and some claim it is obsolete.
That said, the binary discourse of belligerent and neutral states is still wrapped in the fabric of the laws of war and neutrality principles embedded in contemporary military doctrine.” Yes, but it’s all out of date. And that set me to the final point I want to make tonight. I had difficulties in knowing how to end and I had a quotation from Woodrow Wilson, which basically said, “America only intervenes in order to secure peace rather than to be aggressive.” You may have views about that, but it’s a formula, it’s fine, and I think British governments would adhere to that as well. Let’s leave that issue. And I was talking to Trudy over the weekend and I got talking about Churchill, inevitably, and I said, “Well, when something happens, I always ask myself, ‘What would Churchill have done?’” And I said, “So, well, what do you think Churchill would’ve done in this crisis we’re facing in the Middle East?” And I said, “I have no hesitation in saying he would have supported Israel completely in its actions.” And thinking about an end, I thought, well, I said that, but can I put some meat on the bones of that statement? And I’ve asked a question. You can answer it differently. The question is, is the United Nations still fit for purpose? Not just about the question of neutrality, but the question of terrorism. Is the United Nations still fit for purpose? The United Nations should, in an ideal world, stand against tyranny and against terrorism, against Russia, against Hamas.
And I returned to Churchill. There was a very interesting article published in 2016 by the great Churchillian historian, sadly no longer with us, Sir Martin Gilbert. And for those of you who are British, I’m sure you, I’m sure actually probably all of you know that Martin Gilbert was himself Jewish. And Martin Gilbert wrote an article in 2016, which was published in the Jewish Observer and then published in the Middle East Review, which is an academic journal. And I’m quoting three things from it and then that’s the end of the talk. He begins, Martin Gilbert begins, “Hating tyranny in all its forms, Churchill had reacted strongly against the Czarist pogroms in the first years of the 20th century and above, and always understood the desperate need of a haven for Jews,” writes Martin Gilbert. Secondly, “As early as the 8th of February, 1920, long, long before Marxism and the Holocaust, as early as the 8th of February, 1920, Churchill had declared, says Martin Gilbert, in a newspaper article, quote, ‘If as may and will and as may happen and will happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan, a Jewish state under the protection of the British crown, which might comprise three or four million Jews. An event will have occurred in the history of the world, which would from every point of view be beneficial.’” That was Churchill. “1920, the establishment of Israel, the history of the world, which would from every point of view be beneficial.”
And then there’s a final quotation. “Churchill, as a government minister, as a British Government Minister, visited Jerusalem in March of 1921.” And Martin Gilbert said he spoke sternly to the Palestinian Arab leaders telling them, this is Churchill, his words, “It is manifesting right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national centre and a national home where some of them may be reunited and where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years, they have been intimately and profoundly associated.” He said that two decades before the Holocaust and over two decades before the mandate of Britain in Palestine ended. A lot to think about. I hope I haven’t offended anyone, but I hope I cause some of you to think over these important issues, which I’m sure are not taught in schools and probably not in universities, and maybe it’s only on somewhere like Lockdown that these issues get attention. And remember, you never have to agree with the speaker, but if you disagree, think why you disagree and I’m very happy for you to do that. Now I have got some questions. Oh, I’ve got lots.
Q&A and Comments:
Fiona says, “Neutrality looks like the same old.” And I’m not sure what that word is to me.
Q: Shelly says, “Isn’t being neutral often for the benefit of the nation taking that position, example Sweden and Switzerland World War II?”
A: Yes, I’ve said that, and no, sorry, that’s a rude comment. No, I agree with you Shelly.
Eileen says, “The Red Cross wasn’t neutral when they went into Auschwitz.” That of course is, that’s why all these moral issues are so complex.
Marion says, “I’m a Swiss sister and living in the United States, I did all my schooling in Switzerland. History classes did not touch on the Second World War at all. The only thing I remember learning about this period was that the Yelts had been prepared to be dynamited if the Germans were trying to invade. Lie. Germany were never going to take Switzerland who were financing the war.” Now you see, isn’t it interesting? What if I was younger and someone would pay me to do it, I would like to take an issue like whatever World War II and look at how it is taught in different countries, because of course the Swiss can’t teach it because it reopens old woulds and the French have difficulties because of . Germany clearly had problems. These are not easy questions.
Stewart, “Switzerland has joined with the EU adopting many of the various trade sections. Switzerland has imposed sanctions on several countries, including Russia since 2022.” I hope I mentioned that. Well, I did.
“The Swiss Government has adopted EU sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine and has frozen assets belonging to Russian President Putin, Prime Minister Mishustin, and Foreign Minister Lavrov. Switzerland has closed its airspace to flights from Russia and imposed entry bans against individuals who have a connection to Switzerland and are close to the Russian president. About 870 people and more than 60 companies are subject to Swiss sanctions. So sanctions include asset blocks and travel bans. Switzerland’s also called for the return of Crimea and all occupied Ukrainian territory backed Ukraine.” Exactly, sir, as I said, you have to say that is a moral thing to do? Tick. Is it neutrality?
Rita, you always are absolute queen. William’s blog and she’s given you how to get there.
Q: “How did Swedish neutrality differ from Swiss neutrality in World War II?”
A: I can’t go there, it will be too long. Let us simply say that the Swedes were, let me simply say that other Nordic countries still have problems with Sweden because of what it did in World War II. And what it did was to supply, not weapons so much as the raw materials to make the weapons to Germany, but it also did provide weapons as well. And yeah, Sweden, we’d have to do a separate talk about Sweden.
“Switzerland voted for the recent ceasefire resolution, didn’t even abstain.” Well, that’s taking, certainly taking a, is breaking diplomatic neutrality, in my view. “The Swiss were so neutral that trains of Jewish prisoners could go through Switzerland with no problem.” I’m not sure, Marion, what that is referring to.
Q: “How many Jews were there in Switzerland?”
A: Oh, it’s always a very small number. I haven’t got the figure for 1914, I don’t think. No, it’s… It’s something around 12 to 15,000, that’s all.
Michael, “Mr. Tyler has left out the spelling of Jewish funds, stealing.” No, I said some of it has not been accounted for. I think you mean stealing, if you mean stealing, yes, I said some of that is still not accounted for.
Q: “Has the United Nations reached its sell by date?” “Swiss National fighting for a foreign country, did it affect their citizenship?”
A: No. As they fought for, sorry, as they were, the Swiss Guard in the Vatican didn’t affect that. No, they’ve always served abroad. It hasn’t affected their citizenship. That’s a good question though, Monty, in terms of whether that affects their neutrality.
“Has the United Nations reached its sell by date?” That’s my question. The problem is what do you replace it by in the world that we now live in, which is a very, very fractured world. In the Cold War, we were two worlds, West and East, Russia and America. We are not that now. We are very, very fragmented. Rita, “Film is available on YouTube.” Oh, thanks for that. You are a whizz on all these things on the internet.
Hilt, “Being a UN member, how neutral is Switzerland when it comes to voting?” Well, it isn’t neutral because it votes. So if it votes, it can’t be neutral because it’s taking one side of an argument or another side of the argument, so that’s the issue.
Nancy, “My aunt was in an internment camp. She was polish and could not return to her family once the Germans invaded.” No, absolutely true.
Warren, “What was the Jewish…” I know, the Jewish population is 18,000 in ‘39/'40. Oh yeah, and Ellie has responded with the same figure.
Q: William, “Would you and Dennis Davis consider doing something on the history pros and cons, fund written constitutions?” Says Kel.
A: I’m open always to talking about constitutions. The J in Jewish passports dates, I think I’m right in saying from '42. I may be wrong on that. Do look it up and check.
“For proof of Swiss lack of integrity, read "Blood Money” by Tom Bower.“ Absolutely, I should have mentioned that book. "Blood Money,” by Tom Bower, another good book to read.
“I was to translate a book showing that a pastor in Zurich who gave,” says Ellie, “Who gave fiery sermons and speeches against Rockham policy, there were huge demonstrations that led to a turnaround of that policy.” Yes, Switzerland was always divided and that was a problem faced by the Swiss government to keep it together as a country.
Ellie, “My parents escaped from Budapest to Switzerland, French Romani via Bergen, Belsen late in the war. I was born in the city Vevey,” which we talked about. But Michael, “That is stealing.” I got the right word.
Ellie, “The Swiss benefited from their good relationship with Germany during the war, but then again, allies activities on Swiss grounds were very important for winning the war.” Including Dulles setting up for the Americans, the first overseas intelligence unit, which operated in Switzerland.
Ellie, “I worked on the Swiss Bank Agreement at the claims conference. Their actions were not very gracious and they stole millions.” Yes, they did, from persecuted Jews, sorry. “In Ontario,” says Admiral, “In Ontario, Canada, student school records indicated religious affiliation until at least the 1960s.” Yes, we used to do awful things. As an aside and a lighter comment, when I was principal of the College of Education in Manchester in the 1980s, we, for enrollment, and men filled in blue forms and women filled in pink forms. And of course we then had problems, as you can well imagine and this is the 1980s when we were becoming more aware that such divisions were not only unacceptable or clearly wrong and didn’t fit.
Q: Dennis, “From the moment I started learning the history of World War II as a teenager in the early 1960s, it was self-evident Swiss neutrality was a ruse. Germany’s willing bankers would be better named for it. Why did the older generation not call it for what it was and deal with it accordingly?”
A: Because they didn’t have the evidence, that the solid evidence that we now have. And somebody said earlier about stealing, yes, but we don’t have all the information even now. They are very cagey of the Swiss about letting details of their financial arrangements even now.
Q: “Was there any danger of Nazi invasion of Switzerland welcome Jewish refugees?”
A: I can’t answer that, Jeanette. It’s a very good question. I’m not sure that that would’ve made, personally, I’m not sure it would’ve made much difference to the Nazis. By the time they might have invaded, that is after the failure of Barbarossa, they are on the back foot so why create additional problems? So they might not have done. On the other hand, they might have been so dominated by anti-Semitism that they might have done. I can’t answer it.
Q: Michael, “How does Switzerland compare with Sweden?”
A: We’ve talked about that. Well, we haven’t talked about it. I’d have to do that separately.
“The only country near you where Hamas was not declared a terrorist group was Switzerland,” says Patricia. “After 7 October, it was suggested that now it must be declared a terror group. The government said no, it would be against neutrality principle.” And she says, “We can forget about the bloody Swiss neutrality.” Well, I think they have forgotten about it, Patricia. That’s what I’ve been saying.
“Switzerland is not in the EU.” I did actually say that. I hope you didn’t think I said anything different.
Q: Shelly says, “In 1940, did German Swiss want an axis with Germany?”
A: Many of them did. Yes, the the answer has to be yes, many of them did.
Ellie says, “No, mainly because the Swiss are independent minded and they want to stay self-reliant.” Well, there is a division amongst the German Swiss. The German Swiss had a Nazi Party who certainly wanted, as it were, axis with Germany. There were other Germans who did and there were Germans who were living in Switzerland who did. And as Ellie says, there were other Germans who didn’t. It is, as I said very early on, a question of a whole segment of Swiss society, but also individuals took different views. We have, of course, no statistics to say one thing or the other.
Ellie says, “The Swiss were and are rather selfish. I lived there for over 30 years but they thought they were protecting their tiny countries stuck in the middle. They delude themselves. They would’ve blown up mountains.” Yes, that’s true. But I don’t think the Nazis were intimidated. They need Switzerland as their bank for gold. Yes, and because it would not have been, yes, and it wouldn’t have been worth their time.
Merriam, “My parents, Swiss Jews had like everybody else in Switzerland, ration cards, but never went hungry because of shortage of food. Most Swiss knew farmers who supplied them eggs, fruit and vegetables.” And that, of course, was the same in Britain. If you lived in the countryside, you were far better off.
Q: George says, “Could you please deliver a lecture on Ireland neutrality?”
A: Oh dear. As an Englishman, George, you are pushing my luck to be asked to do that. Ireland’s neutrality is certainly questionable in World War II. Well, it’s more than questionable.
Hello Peter, “The differing attitudes of German and French Swiss is illustrated by this story. A close friend of my mother, my papa from Prague, escaped to France in '39. Fortunately in '42, she was able to get across Lake Geneva and found sanctuary in French Switzerland. Sadly, the French boatman was apprehended and executed.” Peter, there was, I didn’t have time to say, but there were a number of executions in Switzerland during World War II of non-Swiss nationals and that’s another part of the story you will appreciate in an hour. I can’t do everything, but you are right.
Rita says, “William, my late father Holocaust survivor and resistance fighter would’ve appreciated.” Oh, no, that’s nice, say good. I have to say, as a non-Jew, whenever I speak about the Holocaust, I feel not that I’m, I feel that I don’t, I just feel, I’ve always felt in the past that Jews should talk about it. I’ve been convinced that that isn’t so, but I still feel that I don’t want to tread on that. I need to tread lightly on people’s memories and I don’t want to upset people, so that’s very nice, Rita, for you to say that. It helps me enormously.
Yona says, “I seriously doubt that either the Swiss or the Germans were worried about invading Switzerland. Both knew that Switzerland was fully dependent on German fuel, either directly from Germany or via France, whose railroads were under the control of Germany. On that basis, Switzerland was never either military nor politically neutral any more than Turkey is neutral in the Arab -Israeli conflict.” Yeah, I don’t disagree with that.
Q: Rose, hello, Rose. “Today, the Swiss refused to call Hamas terrorism. Is this a neutrality, the same neutrality they had when they turned away Jewish refugees from the sure death and concentration camps?”
A: Exactly.
Marian, “Switzerland’s army only has a general in times of war. His name was General Guisan.” Yes. “His son was in the wood business. He sold the materials to build the barracks in concentration camps.” Oh, how awful! How awful is that? That I did not know, Marian, that is a dreadful story.
Catherine says, “United Nations is not fit for purpose and Ellie agrees.” And I agree, Marian, that’s thanks.
Michael says, I’m not getting into a question. I said to Trudy that there will be anti-Churchill feelings. No, it’s not, it isn’t. I’m sorry, I don’t believe that to be true, but that’s another issue for another day.
Q: “Why did it take so long to question Switzerland’s neutrality?”
A: I can’t answer that, George, I really don’t know. It’s one of those unexplainable things.
Barry says, “I went to school in Rhodesia. My school was called Churchill. I’m so proud of that. UN should be closed down.” Yeah, I’m not getting involved in a Churchill argument about Israel. I quoted from one of the greatest Jewish historians of the early 21st, late 20th century, Sir Martin Gilbert, who is himself, who is a Jew, and is the expert on Churchill, and I quoted him because I think that is important to do so, and you must always take things in context.
Q: Judith, “Did Britain take them?”
A: Yes, we did, but we did not take enough and that is a block on Britain, which is of course in Britain not talked about.
Casey, “Host says the UN and Unler in particular, are the key obstacles to peace in the Middle East. Their mandate is to maintain the so-called refugees perpetual hate-building impediment of peace.”
Angela, “After the war, Jewish families denied retrieval of their bank accounts unless they produce trains going through Switzerland on the way to the Council of Jewish,” sorry. Yes, they were denied retrieval, but I’m not sure that I follow what you typed.
“Replace UN by United Democratic Nations,” and who, Ruth, is going to define democratic? Remember that it wasn’t so long ago that America found itself outside, under Trump, listed as not fully democratic by one body.
Oh, hello, Trudy. “The bombing of the railway lines to Auschwitz, Churchill did give the order. Martin Gilbert’s research, he found the letter to Eden. Never reach the Air Force.”
Rita says, “Thank you, Trudy.” And you can put Rita and Williams say thank you, Trudy.
Stuart, “Switzerland did not join the United Nations for some time.” That’s right. “Fearing that its status would be, as a neutral country would be damaged.” It was damaged. Well, sorry, I think it’s been damaged because of it, but whether that’s wrong is a different question. 914281, still doing his prison sentence, obviously.
“Today says the Times comment by Philip Collins is excellent, well worth a read.” I haven’t had Times, Lily. Lily, I haven’t, I’m sorry to pull your leg about the number. Lily, I haven’t had time today yet to read the Times, so that’s something I’ve got to look forward to this evening.
Irene, hello, Irene. “The important work of the UN takes place in its corridors, et cetera. The General Security Council, just window dressing. If the UN didn’t exist, we’d have to invent it.” Well, let me just say, there is a book by a former British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd called “In Search of Peace,” and it’s a very good book going back to 1815 and looking at the history of attempts to create international organisations or systems to stop war. When he gets to the United Nations, he says that it’s the best we’ve got. He’s highly critical but he said, “It’s the best we’ve got.” Now the question is, Irene, how do you find something better than the United Nations? But if it isn’t functioning, there may be, maybe, I don’t know. I really don’t have an answer to that. But Douglas Hurd’s book, “In Search of Peace,” if anyone’s really interested in that sort of issue, it’s well worth reading and it’s worth reading because he was on the inside being a foreign secretary and he was a highly educated man and the book is, I think the book is brilliant, but that’s my opinion, it may not be yours.
“You didn’t mention says,” or is this another number, “You didn’t mention that the banks asked for a death certificates of descendants of Jews who had proof of an account in a Swiss Bank, to which he’s added an all unaccounted property Jewish accounts were blocked only when Ronald Loud came to Switzerland, then there was a deal. Churchill was Prime Minister when the British ruled Palestinian never handed it to the Jews and stopped the entry of the refugee votes from Europe.” Yeah, but we were under a League of Nations mandate, subsequently a United Nations mandate and there had been many, I will talk, because I’m doing it on Zoom and can’t be lynched. I will give a talk, if you want, on the British mandate. It is not quite like that. The British and the UN and the League of Nations before had come to a two-nation answer, but that would prove impossible to implement and Britain was a busted flush when it withdrew. It withdrew because it could not get any agreement and indeed, it couldn’t even get so much support from the United Nations but that is another story for another book. And the book, “Cafe Schindler” talks about the treatment of Jewish citizens in Switzerland during World War II.“ That is a book I have not read.
"Cafe Schindler,” another one to go on my list. Philip said, “Switzerland was one of the first countries which had terror attacks, 1968 airport in Zurich.” That’s true.
George, “Many Jewish refugees were returned as aliens from the Axis countries.” Yung, “It doesn’t mention how the UN got to be the sump that it is. The problem began not 'cause of proliferation of small undemocratic states, but because the family members were too eager to include every African, regardless of its non-implementation of the principles of the UN charter. Yes, there have been other contributory factors such as size, population doesn’t matter, or creating a condition called observer status and then treating observer status as though they were fully accredited members in the various UN . It was the Big 10 syndrome. Result, the well-known phrase, putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.” And there is an equal argument along those lines about the European Union. One of the reasons that many in Britain voted for Brexit just think of Orban in Hungary, who doesn’t fulfil any, it seems to me, of the EU conditions for membership. And it’s a question of do you want your enemy inside? Put crudely, do you want your enemy inside the tent pissing outwards or outside the tent pissing inwards? Which is a well-known phrase here in Britain.
Olga, “A guide was going to smuggle us to Switzerland, but he denounced us first, 1942. In Belgium in 1942.” Olga, that is a terrible story. That’s absolutely horrendous. And I’m not going to go on after that. Let me read again. Olga says, “A guide was going to smuggle us to Switzerland, but he denounced us first. That was in Belgium in 1942.” We lived in a frightening world then and we live in a frightening world now. That’s a terrible, terrible thing and I’m glad you shared it, but it makes us think. Thanks for listening. I hope it hasn’t been too depressing and I hope it makes you think about the UN. I hope it makes you think about the nature of neutrality and I hope it makes you think about current events in the light of past events.
Thank you very much for listening. Good night.