Neutrality is the Answer - They Didn't Attack Switzerland

[Truth-Bringer]

They Didn't Attack Switzerland

by Bill Walker

Switzerland has not been in a war of any kind since 1815. It has not been in an official foreign war since 1515. This would be astounding, even miraculous, for any nation. But Switzerland borders Germany . And France . And Italy . And Austria . And Liechtenstein . Now the Prince of Liechtenstein has rarely lashed out in Blitzkrieg in a desperate bid to reign uber alles, but ALL of Switzerland 's other neighbors have devoted a lot of effort to invading other countries.

In addition to the encircling foreign marauders, Switzerland itself is composed of several different ethnic groups that get along as well as, e.g., Germans and French. But they haven’t ethnically cleansed each other for two centuries, either.

You would think that peacekeeping performance of this kind would make Switzerland an object of study in every political science and civics course worldwide. "WHY Didn't They Attack Switzerland ?" should be the title of many a textbook. This is not the case. Very few political scientists study Switzerland .

Switzerland is of no interest to politicians, because the features of the Swiss system that keep the peace are the same features that make Swiss politicians unimportant. Do you know the name of the Swiss President now serving out his nonrenewable one-year term? No, you do not (it’s Samuel Schmid, but you won’t remember tomorrow). His name doesn't matter, and he doesn't matter to the defense of Switzerland . There is no central location of Swiss defense, no Pentagon or NORAD into which you can crash a 757 or a black-market Kazakh nuclear weapon. The defense of Switzerland is the entire people of Switzerland itself.

The features of the Swiss system for keeping the peace are simple. They mind their own business, and they have very strict gun control. By which they mean that every Swiss male must have a gun, except for those who have to carry a mortar or missile launcher. Females are not subject to universal military training, but if you go to a Swiss rifle range, there are always girls blasting away too. After 9-11, the Swiss told passengers to carry their bayonets onto their airliners . . . somewhat different from the US response of panicked victim-disarmament. (You are aware that 99% of US pilots are STILL disarmed?)

As a final defense, the Swiss have rigged the vaults of their banks for demolition. Any dictator attacking Switzerland will find the gold in his numbered bank account buried in rubble hundreds of meters under a mountain. It is known that Hitler had a numbered account.

Switzerland has also provided for defense of the lives of its civilian population against nuclear terrorism. Realizing after World War Two that nuclear weapons in the hands of power-mad idiots posed a public health threat, the Swiss started a nationwide shelter-building program in 1960. By 1991, there was enough shelter space in Switzerland to protect everyone in their home or apartment, and also enough at their workplace and school. A Swiss citizen is generally never more than a few minutes from a fallout shelter with an air filter.

Rest of article at:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/walker/walker1.html

[palerider]

Switzerland wasn't attacked because they maintained intimate financial ties with germany throughout the war. They also turned jewish refugees back at their borders. And the swiss were among the few that were capable of carrying out the vanishing of jewish bank accounts in such a was as to maintain their liquidity for the germans.

Switzerland became germany's bank for all practical purposes. To suggest that they didn't come under attack because they remained neutral is dishonest at best.

[Dave]

Switzerland has also never experienced the prosperity of the United States has. If the U.S. had remained neutral in WWII, there would have been thousands more deaths, and there could possibly have been a very different outcome. Countries like Switzerland can afford to stay neutral because countries like the United States and Britain refuse neutrality.

[9sublime]

Hey, I'm new to the forum. Name's Jack, and I'm from the UK.

On the topic of neutrality, if Britain had stayed neutral, we wouldn't have been attacked by radicals. And its not like America need us in Iraq, they have enough military strength to replace us. It wasn't our twin towers that were bombed, so it wasn't really any of our business to get involved. If America had needed our help it would have been different, but they can do all this without us.

All we got out of this war is our tubes blown up and the loss of innocent lives. All the every day person in Iraq got was their whole country even more dangerous than under Saddams rule.

While I hated Saddam, and I thing the twin towers was disgusting, the war is worse than either of them.

[palerider]

Hey, I'm new to the forum. Name's Jack, and I'm from the UK.

On the topic of neutrality, if Britain had stayed neutral, we wouldn't have been attacked by radicals. And its not like America need us in Iraq, they have enough military strength to replace us. It wasn't our twin towers that were bombed, so it wasn't really any of our business to get involved. If America had needed our help it would have been different, but they can do all this without us.

All we got out of this war is our tubes blown up and the loss of innocent lives. All the every day person in Iraq got was their whole country even more dangerous than under Saddams rule.

While I hated Saddam, and I thing the twin towers was disgusting, the war is worse than either of them.

The UK is under attack. Maybe your sky scrapers aren't falling down with jet planes stuck in them, but you are under attack none the less and the damage that has been done to your nation is far more serious than the felling of our towers.

For example, ice cream at burger king has been banned, because muslims have complained that the picture of the ice cream on the container looks like the word allah.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005430136,,00.html

And banning a box of tissues because winnie the pooh and piglet are on it because muslims believe pigs are unclean? Really.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UE2SHXTVRWUX1QFIQMFCNAGAVCBQ YJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/10/04/do0402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/04/ixportal.html

Your nation is being invaded by muslims and they are reproducing at a rate that is going to make them the majority in your nation before half this century is gone. The same is true for most of europe.

You are under attack but just don't know it. You are like the frog who is in water that is being heated up. You won't realize the trouble you are in until it is too late.

[vyo476]

The UK is under attack. Maybe your sky scrapers aren't falling down with jet planes stuck in them, but you are under attack none the less and the damage that has been done to your nation is far more serious than the felling of our towers.

For example, ice cream at burger king has been banned, because muslims have complained that the picture of the ice cream on the container looks like the word allah.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005430136,,00.html

And banning a box of tissues because winnie the pooh and piglet are on it because muslims believe pigs are unclean? Really.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=UE2SHXTVRWUX1QFIQMFCNAGAVCBQ YJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/10/04/do0402.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/04/ixportal.html

Your nation is being invaded by muslims and they are reproducing at a rate that is going to make them the majority in your nation before half this century is gone. The same is true for most of europe.

You are under attack but just don't know it. You are like the frog who is in water that is being heated up. You won't realize the trouble you are in until it is too late.

Oh my God! Times might change! Everyone, quick, get your pitchforks!

If I wanted to put a picture of a woman getting ****ed in the ass on a billboard promoting porn would you let me? No, because to your sensibilities that is profanity - much in the same way pigs are profane to Muslims.

If people want to immigrate and bring their cultural ideals with them, fine. There is no reason they shouldn't. I chimed in to support the language thing in another thread because I believe that in order to a functioning part of a nation's economy and government you have to speak the predominant language of the country as well as your own. This issue that you just brought up has to do with culture and is therefore not applicable.

What do you propose the British do about this? End immigration just because immigrants are changing their nation's cultural standards?

[9sublime]

I am not racist at all, I have quite a few Muslim friends, but yes this whole political correctness thing is ridiculous.

They banned piggy banks in adverts for banks because it might offend Muslims, but every Muslim I spoke to thought it just as stupid as I did.

And yes, while I would feel uncomfortable if this country became more and more 'Muslim', I shouldn't because the average Muslim is a levelheaded person and in my experience doesn't try to force their religion on you like the average Christian. And in the US it seems you have more radical Christians than Muslims, its just the Muslims bomb stuff and the Christians just brainwash people.

[Truth-Bringer]

Switzerland wasn't attacked because they maintained intimate financial ties with germany throughout the war. They also turned jewish refugees back at their borders. And the swiss were among the few that were capable of carrying out the vanishing of jewish bank accounts in such a was as to maintain their liquidity for the germans.

Switzerland became germany's bank for all practical purposes. To suggest that they didn't come under attack because they remained neutral is dishonest at best.

Some private companies and banks did collude with the Nazis, but they did so without government knowledge. Meanwhile, many private Swiss citizens also opened bank accounts for Jews in order to help them protect their money from confiscation by the Nazis. Yes, there were many instances when Jews were turned away, but there were also many instances where they were given sanctuary. Switzerland wasn't a poster child for perfection during World War 2, but they certainly behaved more civilized than most other countries who were killing people by the millions.

"World War II - Swiss secrecy helped persecuted Jews hide money from the Nazis"

http://www.solami.com/swissbanks.htm

can you prove that the Swiss policy for Jewish refugees was more strict than for other races? If not, you cannot condemn them for that. Europe was engrossed in war and they had to use every means possible to survive. That includes limiting the number of refugees. Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated? Again, if the Jews will not stand up and fight for themselves, why don't you criticize them first instead of condemning other people for not saving them when they won't even fight for their own lives? That's the real issue.

But let's take a look at the fact that many private Swiss citizens did help numerous Jews escape from the Nazis:

"Carl LUTZ (1964)
Gertrud LUTZ, née FRANKHAUSER (1964)
Carl Lutz (1895-1975) deserves very particular mention. As the first Swiss national who was elevated to the rank of Righteous among the Nations in 1964, he – aided by his wife and his helpers – saved about 62,000 Hungarian Jews after the German occupation of March 1944.

Jeanne LAVERGNAT (1998)
Arthur LAVERGNAT (1998)
Arthur and Jeanne Lavergnat let numerous groups of Jewish children and other refugees use their market-gardening farm near the French/Swiss border as a half-way house during their escape."

The list continues at:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Switzerland8.htm

Here's another one. Funny how most of the Jews on this list found safety in Switzerland:

They also arranged the release of children from internment camps, and then smuggled them to safety in Switzerland or Spain. On a local level in France, similar activities were carried out by the Comite rue Amelot, the Jewish Communist "Solidarite" organization in Paris, the Service Andres group in Marseille, and the Groupe Maurice Cachoud in Nice, which specialized in secretly transporting children to refuge in Switzerland. Thanks to these efforts, as many as 12,000-15,000 Jewish children were saved from deportation and almost certain death."

Rest of the info at:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php...uleId=10005519

And how much did the American trade and profit from private American business exchanges contribute to the Nazis being able to murder more Jews? We'll likely never know... Don't forget, FDR was freely trading with Hitler's Germany up until Pearl Harbor.

[Truth-Bringer]

Switzerland has also never experienced the prosperity of the United States has.

LOL. Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world...

If the U.S. had remained neutral in WWII, there would have been thousands more deaths, and there could possibly have been a very different outcome.

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't have entered the war to end the Holocaust. I would just remind people that we didn't. It had nothing to do with it. Roosevelt even forced the ship "St. Louis" to head back to Europe, sending Jews to their deaths.

Good primer:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/

Countries like Switzerland can afford to stay neutral because countries like the United States

No, countries like Switzerland remain neutral for the following valid reasons:

"Neither Nationalist nor Socialist: How the Swiss Kept Their Freedom in World War II"

(by Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute, from Reason Magazine)

An "island of liberty and harmony in a sea of dictatorship and discord" and "a citadel of peace through stormy centuries," to quote a 1938 New York Times analysis; "it is a land of hard work and frugal habits, of justice and cleanness and tolerance, of the very essence of live-and-let-live" -- and, not incidentally, the bulwark of free-market capitalism in Europe. To say that Switzerland enjoyed a favorable reputation in America until recently would be to understate matters. Today, after a relentless and astonishingly one-sided media campaign, there is scarcely a horror tale about the Swiss too extreme or absurd to be picked up in the press.

The assault began with widely circulated allegations -- the truth is less clear-cut than news reports have made it sound -- that Swiss banks swallowed great sums deposited in private accounts by victims of the Holocaust. (At press time, Swiss banks had reached a tentative agreement to settle those allegations, and avert threatened sanctions, by paying more than $1 billion.)

Picking up its own momentum, the indictment soon expanded into a depiction of the Swiss as a nation of heartless profiteers, "Hitler's silent partners," working to advance the Nazi cause without being shot at. In June the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center made worldwide headlines by issuing a report claiming that pro-Nazi activity "thoroughly saturated...the core of Swiss society." Teenagers now grow up hearing that the Swiss spent World War II rooting for the Axis powers.

Now Stephen Halbrook, an attorney and well-known Second Amendment expert (he's the author of 1984's That Every Man Be Armed), has taken a much-needed look at the Swiss wartime record in a new book titled "Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II." The book not only provides a starting point for all future discussions of Switzerland's military role in the war, but also makes an interesting contribution to the literature on both federalism and gun rights; according to Halbrook, Switzerland's traditions of extreme decentralization and of a well-armed populace played a key role in preserving its freedom in an hour of peril.

As Halbrook reminds us, the American Founders often cited Switzerland as an example of the kind of nation they hoped to build on these shores. They admired its survival for centuries as a democracy amid tyrannies of every kind, following its birth in 1291 as the result of a peasant revolt in the remote fastnesses of the Alps.

Rest of article at:

http://2asig.iqhost.net/2001/dec.htm

and Britain refuse neutrality.

Let's hear from a prominent Brit on the subject:

"I put this down for the record," wrote Churchill to Anthony Eden in a December 1944 memo reprinted in Triumph and Tragedy. "Of all the neutrals Switzerland has the greatest right to distinction. What does it matter whether she has been able to give us the commercial advantages we desire or has given too many to the Germans to keep herself alive? She has been a democratic State, standing for freedom in self-defense among her mountains, and in thought, in spite of race, largely on our side."

[palerider]

What do you propose the British do about this? End immigration just because immigrants are changing their nation's cultural standards?

You believe the action is appropriate? Do you believe it would be equally appropriate for the British citizens to demand that the muslims stop doinig a thing or change iin some way because they are offended by the muslims?

Immigrants to a nation hardly have a right to expect for that nation to bend over backwards to accomodate them if something about said nation offends them. I would hardly be reasonable if I came to your home and demanded that you repaint, or dispose of some art work that I find objectionable. If I don't like your home and find its custom offensive, then I don't have to come.

[palerider]

Some private companies and banks did collude with the Nazis, but they did so without government knowledge. Meanwhile, many private Swiss citizens also opened bank accounts for Jews in order to help them protect their money from confiscation by the Nazis. Yes, there were many instances when Jews were turned away, but there were also many instances where they were given sanctuary. Switzerland wasn't a poster child for perfection during World War 2, but they certainly behaved more civilized than most other countries who were killing people by the millions.

OK. First, nazi gold including gold that was once fillings in the mouths of jews killed at the camps was accepted by the swiss national bank. Private banks accepted gold as well, but they did so with the permission of the government.

Secondly, if swiss citizens gave protection to jews, they did so illegally. The policy of the swiss government was that jewish refugees were not to be accepted.

The swiss government, and a few other neutral countries avoided attack in very large part by converting nazi gold into currency with which the could purchase material for their war effort, and by instituting government policy that forbid jewish immigration.

[Truth-Bringer]

OK. First, nazi gold including gold that was once fillings in the mouths of jews killed at the camps was accepted by the swiss national bank. Private banks accepted gold as well, but they did so with the permission of the government.

Secondly, if swiss citizens gave protection to jews, they did so illegally. The policy of the swiss government was that jewish refugees were not to be accepted.

The swiss government, and a few other neutral countries avoided attack in very large part by converting nazi gold into currency with which the could purchase material for their war effort, and by instituting government policy that forbid jewish immigration.

First of all, PRODUCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR ALL OF YOUR CLAIMS.

Secondly, your charges are refuted by someone with a hell of a lot more credibility than you on the issue:

The Swiss in the 1940s Were No Worse Than the Rest of Us

By Walter J. Rockler - International Herald Tribune

The current wave of vilification of Switzerland, most recently abetted by a U.S. government report, is overblown and basically warped. A public image is being created of the Swiss as virtual Nazi collaborators. This is false.

In writing these views, I should note that I was the Nuremberg war crimes trial prosecutor directly responsible for cases against German bankers, and I spent two years at that work. My cases had no Swiss components or angles.

Switzerland has maintained a policy of neutrality and nonalignment in European and world affairs for hundreds of years. That was its official policy also in World War II. I do not know where the sympathies of most Swiss were directed during the war, but the country is the oldest democracy in the world and has a pluralistic population of German, French and Italian background.

Were some Swiss pro-Nazi? Probably. But the United States had its German American Bund, Britain its Cliveden set and Mosleyites, and France the Vichy government.

Rest of article at:

http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/07/23/edwalt.t.php

[Truth-Bringer]

The policy of the swiss government was that jewish refugees were not to be accepted.


Why can you not answer my questions and address my points:

Can you prove that the Swiss policy for Jewish refugees was more strict than for other races? If not, you cannot condemn them for that. Europe was engrossed in war and they had to use every means possible to survive. That includes limiting the number of refugees. Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated? Again, if the Jews will not stand up and fight for themselves, why don't you criticize them first instead of condemning other people for not saving them when they won't even fight for their own lives? That's the real issue.

[palerider]

First of all, PRODUCE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR ALL OF YOUR CLAIMS.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/etc/status.html

http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/swiss-kept-billions.html

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DztFW693SeUJ:www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9805/25/nazi.gold/+%22switzerland%22+%22nazi+gold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/eizen_nazigold.html

The Swiss in the 1940s Were No Worse Than the Rest of Us

I didn't make any statement about individual swiss citizens. I made a statement about the swiss government's relationship with germany. The fact is that switzerland has just completed a very large restitution regime involving assets of prisoners of nazi camps and nazi loot from other locations.

[palerider]

Why can you not answer my questions and address my points:

Can you prove that the Swiss policy for Jewish refugees was more strict than for other races?

Sure, how about an apology from the swiss government with regard to turning away jews.

Here is a clip from that apology:

"Nothing can make good the consequences of decisions taken at the time, and we pay our respects before the pain of those who were denied access to our territory and were abandoned to unspeakable suffering, deportation and death,"



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/558450.stm


Just the fact that jews were fleeing for their lives is evidence enough of the harshness of the government policy.

If not, you cannot condemn them for that. Europe was engrossed in war and they had to use every means possible to survive. That includes limiting the number of refugees.

They were hitler's bankers and they turned away jewish refugees. This effectively refutes the original premise of the thread that the swiss stayed out of the war because they were neutral. The fact is that they were not neutral.

The morality of their decisions is open for debate, but their neutrality, which is the premise of this thread is not. They were not neutral.

[9sublime]

You believe the action is appropriate? Do you believe it would be equally appropriate for the British citizens to demand that the muslims stop doinig a thing or change iin some way because they are offended by the muslims?

Immigrants to a nation hardly have a right to expect for that nation to bend over backwards to accomodate them if something about said nation offends them. I would hardly be reasonable if I came to your home and demanded that you repaint, or dispose of some art work that I find objectionable. If I don't like your home and find its custom offensive, then I don't have to come.

Why are you so scared of change? As soon as Labour goes out of power and the Convervative party comes back in a lot of this will change but they will still accomodate and tolerate Muslims and the positive changes they may bring about to the society in the future. You seem like a person who wants the world to stay as it is, or even go backwards. A true conservative.

While there is anything wrong in any part of the world, nobody should object to ANY cultural change from a group.

Sure, hardline Muslims do some evil things, but most British Muslims are honest people.

[palerider]

and the positive changes they may bring about to the society in the future..

Describe for me any "postitive" changes that a large influx of muslims have brought about in any nation.

[9sublime]

Closer cultural and economic links with friendly Muslim countries?

For a patriot of a country that kisses the arses of most foreign countries with oil your pretty anti their occupants.

[palerider]

Closer cultural and economic links with friendly Muslim countries?

Joe Blow muslim has accomplished this how?

And your claim was that they bring positive changes to societies. Links to other countries could hardly be characterized as societal changes.

[vyo476]

You believe the action is appropriate? Do you believe it would be equally appropriate for the British citizens to demand that the muslims stop doinig a thing or change iin some way because they are offended by the muslims?

Immigrants to a nation hardly have a right to expect for that nation to bend over backwards to accomodate them if something about said nation offends them. I would hardly be reasonable if I came to your home and demanded that you repaint, or dispose of some art work that I find objectionable. If I don't like your home and find its custom offensive, then I don't have to come.

But you don't own my home. It is my personal space to do with as I choose. By that same token, no singular individual or small group of individuals own a nation's culture - it belongs to the people. By immigrating to a specific country Muslims make themselves a part of "the people," and thereafter what is public domain is up to them as well as everyone else. You constantly look on immigrants as outsiders when that is not the case.

And yes, there should be compromises between Muslim immigrants and native Britons. There are - the culture of Britain, as it stands, is about ten or twelve steps to the left of what an Islamic nation would allow. The measures enacted recently are compromises, not unilateral concessions.

[9sublime]

Tell me what good the white man did in colonising Northern America then if you do not approve of any kind of change in a culture if it is not from the native people?

[palerider]

But you don't own my home. It is my personal space to do with as I choose. By that same token, no singular individual or small group of individuals own a nation's culture - it belongs to the people. By immigrating to a specific country Muslims make themselves a part of "the people," and thereafter what is public domain is up to them as well as everyone else. You constantly look on immigrants as outsiders when that is not the case.

Muslims aren't looking to make themselves part of the culture. They are demanding that the culture accomodate their wants and to change anything that they find offensive. We have plenty of hispanics in this country, both legal and illegal but I don't see them demanding that items be taken off the market, etc., so as not to offend them. Ditto for immigrants of other countries as well.

And yes, there should be compromises between Muslim immigrants and native Britons. There are - the culture of Britain, as it stands, is about ten or twelve steps to the left of what an Islamic nation would allow. The measures enacted recently are compromises, not unilateral concessions.

And as the muslim population grows, watch it move to the right to accomodate them. How far have you moved towards accomodating them in the past decade? And exactly who are immigrants that they should place demands on your culture for compromize anyway?

[palerider]

Tell me what good the white man did in colonising Northern America then if you do not approve of any kind of change in a culture if it is not from the native people?

I never said that I don't approve of any kind of change in a culture. I don't approve of immigrants coming into a nation and telling the natives how it is gooing to be from here on out unless they (the natives) want trouble and you know as well as I that if anyone crosses islam, trouble is the inevetable response. Britan conceeded to the muslims on the ice cream and pigs to avoid violence in the streets.

I asked you to describe any positive societal changes that any nation has experienced as a result of an infusion of muslims. Is an answer forthcoming?

[vyo476]

Muslims aren't looking to make themselves part of the culture. They are demanding that the culture accomodate their wants and to change anything that they find offensive. We have plenty of hispanics in this country, both legal and illegal but I don't see them demanding that items be taken off the market, etc., so as not to offend them. Ditto for immigrants of other countries as well.



And as the muslim population grows, watch it move to the right to accomodate them. How far have you moved towards accomodating them in the past decade? And exactly who are immigrants that they should place demands on your culture for compromize anyway?

It's not my culture. Culture belongs to the people, the society as a whole. If they're coming to live in my country it is theirs too. They demand that the culture be changed to accommodate their wants just as any other member of a culture would do. People have, over time, insisted that I change the things I contribute to the culture for one reason or another. Those people didn't want to have to look at what I produced because it offended them. I didn't like it but I learned to deal with it.

Yes, as the Muslim population grows the culture will move to the right to accommodate them. Their culture will blend with ours which is how it has worked since people started moving around the world at all. Look at Louisiana - slaves brought to the New World created a number of amalgamations of their own native African culture and the culture of Native Americans and even their white slave masters - amongst other things we have them to thank for creating Jazz music. If former slaves oppressed by Jim Crow lows in the Deep South could stomach melding their culture with those of the people who had kept them in bondage for a few hundred years I think the Muslims moving to Britain can probably deal with blending their ideas with the native Britons.

Time goes on and societies change. We could either accept it and run with it or we can bury our heads in the sand and continue antagonizing a people who have been receiving the short end of the stick from the West since the end of World War I. Which would you prefer?

One other thing - wasn't this thread about Switzerland?

[9sublime]

I asked you to describe any positive societal changes that any nation has experienced as a result of an infusion of muslims. Is an answer forthcoming?

Do you support Israel? I imagine you do. Tell me what positive changes they have bought about by coming into a Muslim country.

[palerider]

Do you support Israel? I imagine you do. Tell me what positive changes they have bought about by coming into a Muslim country.


First off, they didn't come into a muslim country. They came into a largely uninhabited swamp that was a british territory. They drained the swamps, wiped out malaria, built a thriving economy which created literally millions of jobs for jews and arabs alike, and a government that doesn't go about attacking its neighbors because of their religion.

[Friendindeed]

First off, they didn't come into a muslim country. They came into a largely uninhabited swamp that was a british territory. They drained the swamps, wiped out malaria, built a thriving economy which created literally millions of jobs for jews and arabs alike, and a government that doesn't go about attacking its neighbors because of their religion.


A lot of historians seem to disagree with that version, too many to ignore.

[palerider]

A lot of historians seem to disagree with that version, too many to ignore.

19th century romantic authors aren't historians.

[Truth-Bringer]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/etc/status.html

http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/swiss-kept-billions.html

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:DztFW693SeUJ:www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9805/25/nazi.gold/+%22switzerland%22+%22nazi+gold%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/eizen_nazigold.html

All of these commissions were formed prior to the Weisenthal's center report, which was shown to contain many errors and falsifications:

"Halbrook's is not the only voice being raised to correct recent misreporting. When the Wiesenthal Center's report came out in June, Switzerland's own Jewish community dismissed it as outrageous and ridden with errors. The Basel-based Juedische Rundschau criticized its "exaggerations and falsifications", while the head of the Swiss Confederation of Hebrew Congregations found the report "one-sided and exaggerated." "The Swiss Nazis were weak in numbers," pointed out Zurich's Israelitisches Wochenblatt. "In the parliament in Bern they had exactly one seat for four years." Most embarrassingly, Simon Wiesenthal himself, the famed Nazi-hunter after whom the center was named, disavowed the report as biased and inaccurate.

From: http://2asig.iqhost.net/2001/dec.htm

You'll forgive me for doubting reports involving the U.S. government, which doesn't exactly have a track record for honesty in international matters...


I didn't make any statement about individual swiss citizens. I made a statement about the swiss government's relationship with germany. The fact is that switzerland has just completed a very large restitution regime involving assets of prisoners of nazi camps and nazi loot from other locations.

And yet Swiss government officials deported German residents who promoted Nazism:

"Swiss authorities prosecuted and suppressed numerous Nazi-front organizations, arresting or deporting their leadership, who were often German nationals resident in Switzerland. The "bulk of news reporting in [Swiss] broadcasting and the press is anti-German," lamented one high Nazi official. "Germany has no good press in Switzerland." Dependent on coal from Germany, Switzerland went on trading with the Germans long after Hitler's evil had become apparent -- as indeed did the United States until Pearl Harbor. Much to the scandal of today's retroactive moralists, Switzerland also traded extensively in gold with both Axis and Allies. That led to some strange results, since in many cases the two sides were aware that, once the role of the Swiss as middlemen was stripped out, they were in effect trading with each other."

From: http://2asig.iqhost.net/2001/dec.htm

The same source also says:

"Hitler himself denounced the Swiss repeatedly as "despicable and wretched", "misbegotten", "renegades", "repugnant", "a pimple on the face of Europe" which "cannot be allowed to continue". (Stalin couldn't stand them either.)

The Fuehrer despised their purely defensive military philosophy: "An army whose only goal is to secure peace" is craven, he said. "In addition to all the other characteristics of the Swiss that Hitler disliked," Halbrook adds, "he hated them because of their free market capitalism, which he associated with Judaism." The ever-abusive Voelkischer Beobachter resorted to the epithet "Berg-Semiten": mountain Jews."

The bottom line is that the Swiss government was not pro-Nazi. Your second source above states:

"The study said the Swiss National Bank (SNB) did not know the source of the gold, but that it also made no attempt to find out if victim gold was being deposited."

My question is "how exactly were they supposed to find this out?" They had no legal authority to investigate the Germans, and no means to send bank investigators into a war zone. All they had to go by was the information provided to them by the depositors.

Again, there are some black spots on their record, they were far from perfect, but to say this is what kept the Nazis at bay is false.

[Truth-Bringer]

Sure, how about an apology from the swiss government with regard to turning away jews.

Did we ever hear an apology from FDR for turning away jews? No. There's no doubt the Swiss did turn some jews away, but some were saved, as I previously posted.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/558450.stm

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?


Just the fact that jews were fleeing for their lives is evidence enough of the harshness of the government policy.

Why were they fleeing Germany in the first place? Why didn't they fight to the death? Why did they turn their guns in?



They were hitler's bankers and they turned away jewish refugees.

Hitler hated them, as I posted above, and he didn't need any bankers. The banks in Germany served him fully. And as your own source said, they allowed almost the same number of jews into their country as they turned away. I wonder if other countries could say the same. It's a fact FDR sent some jews to their deaths.

This effectively refutes the original premise of the thread that the swiss stayed out of the war because they were neutral.

No, it doesn't.

The fact is that they were not neutral.

The morality of their decisions is open for debate, but their neutrality, which is the premise of this thread is not. They were not neutral.

Yes, they were. Winston Churchill admits as much, and he has far more credibility on the issue than an ignorant fool like you.

[9sublime]

Palerider what nationalities do you like apart from Americans and Jews?

[palerider]

All of these commissions were formed prior to the Weisenthal's center report, which was shown to contain many errors and falsifications:

Your quotes are not findings, they are claims, nothing more. The only thing "shown" was that the swiss did business, a lot of business with the nazis.

You'll forgive me for doubting reports involving the U.S. government, which doesn't exactly have a track record for honesty in international matters...

Then feel free to provide some PROOF that the report is wrong. Suggesting that data is wrong based on no more than where it comes from constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack.

And yet Swiss government officials deported German residents who promoted Nazism:

It does not change the fact that the swiss didn't get attacked, because they were hitler's bankers.

The bottom line is that the Swiss government was not pro-Nazi. Your second source above states:

I never said that they were pro nazi. I said that they didn't get attacked because they were hitler's bankers. They were providing him liquid assets for his war effort in exchange for looted gold.

[palerider]

Did we ever hear an apology from FDR for turning away jews? No. There's no doubt the Swiss did turn some jews away, but some were saved, as I previously posted.

FDR is completely beside the point and for you to inject him into this discussion is for you to erect a strawman. This thread isn't about FDR, it is about how the swiss kept from being attacked.

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?

Further irrelavence since the topic of this thread isn't about the immigration policies of the US either.

Why were they fleeing Germany in the first place? Why didn't they fight to the death? Why did they turn their guns in?

More irrelavence. Is it really necessary to remind you of what the topic of this thread is?

[palerider]

Palerider what nationalities do you like apart from Americans and Jews?

I like all nationalities, but likeing them doesn't mean that I have to disregard their history does it? The men who did business with hitler to keep the nazis from attacking their country are all dead now, or so old that they have become irrelavent. Their actions don't reflect on switzerland today.

[9sublime]

You like all nationalities? I reckon I could find lots of quotes that are pretty much blatant racism against Muslims.

[palerider]

You like all nationalities? I reckon I could find lots of quotes that are pretty much blatant racism against Muslims.

muslim is neither a nationality nor a race.

[9sublime]

General hatred of Muslims.

[palerider]

General hatred of Muslims.


Not hatred. Specific dislike. I dislike those who engage in terrorism, and I dislike those who condone and encourage them (terrorists) with their silence.

[rmarin]

Switzerland was not neutral.
<Though neutral Switzerland adhered to the mandatory international rules during World War 2, while the warfaring nations violated even these (neither Germany nor the Allies respected Swiss air space, Allied aircraft even dropped about 70 bombs on Switzerland), it is evident that being neutral would call for a spirit of neutrality that was offended by important Swiss actors.

Switzerland's national bank, private Swiss bankers and private manufacturers of war material exploited in fact every loophole in the regulations for their business with Nazi Germany. This was evidently not the notion of neutrality and so Swiss Federal Councillor [member of government] Max Petitpierre (in office 1945-1951) had to admit as early as 1947:

These credits and the deliveries of war material and other products [...] contributed to the war efforts of one of the belligerents. Not only had we abandonded integral neutrality, but - even worse - in so doing, we were as a rule deviating from the very notion of neutrality.
(Max Petitpierre, speech given at a conference of Swiss diplomates, in: Swiss Diplomatic Documents (SDD) vol. 17, nr. 26, p. 87, quoted after Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 519)>

And as far as the Muslim goes :
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful

[9sublime]

Well if you have a specific dislike of Muslims, then you can understand and not hold it against them if they have a specific dilike of Western people in general because its just as much of an ignorant and stupid thing to believe.

Your brand of conservativism is just as backward as radical Islam, just not as violent and it achieves nothing positive, just like radical Islam.

[TheWaffle]

Well if you have a specific dislike of Muslims, then you can understand and not hold it against them if they have a specific dilike of Western people in general because its just as much of an ignorant and stupid thing to believe.

Your brand of conservativism is just as backward as radical Islam, just not as violent and it achieves nothing positive, just like radical Islam.

Well said.

[palerider]

Well if you have a specific dislike of Muslims, then you can understand and not hold it against them if they have a specific dilike of Western people in general because its just as much of an ignorant and stupid thing to believe.

So thier bombing and killing and terrorism is analagous to my pointing out the truth about islam?

And did I say that I have a specific dislike of muslims, or did I say that I had a specific dislike of those who engage in terrorism and of those who condone and encourage it through their silence. If you believe that with that statment I am saying that I specifically dislike all muslims, then you are implying, in effect, that there are only those two types of muslims. Are you saying that there are only two types? Terrorists and those who support and encourage terrorism?

Your brand of conservativism is just as backward as radical Islam, just not as violent and it achieves nothing positive, just like radical Islam.

Describe my "brand" of conservativism. List off a few of the tenets of my "brand" of conservativism. Tell me something about the philosophy of my "brand" of conservativism.

Or admit that you really don't know much about conservativism or its tenets, or its philosophy and that you were just being sarcastic because you really didn't have an adequate rebuttal to my statement.

[9sublime]

So thier bombing and killing and terrorism is analagous to my pointing out the truth about islam?

NO, what I said was that your thinking and 'specific dislike' of millions of people you have never met based on their religion, is just as backward as terrorists hatred of the west and is therefore 'analagous'. I specifically said that your backward thinking was non-violent though and therefore doesn't involve killing and terrorism.


And did I say that I have a specific dislike of muslims, or 'did I say that I had a specific dislike of those who engage in terrorism and of those who condone and encourage it through their silence. If you believe that with that statment I am saying that I specifically dislike all muslims, then you are implying, in effect, that there are only those two types of muslims. Are you saying that there are only two types? Terrorists and those who support and encourage terrorism?


How have I ever implied that their are only two types of Muslims, ones who commit crimes and supporters of these crimes.

I've been saying the complete opposite.

You've taken my last quote, twisted it and made it go against my main point
in this debate, that most Muslims DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM AND THAT THEIR SILENCE ISN'T SUPPORT.

As for your brand of conservatism, I am saying that you are just as filled with hate for religions, races and cultures as a lot of violent Muslims are, but rather than blowing stuff up you just sit behind a computer and ***** and moan because you havn't got any balls to change the world. You don't want the world to change, except for it to get more traditionally American. Your thinking is backward.

And how do I not even know the basics of conservatism.

[Fonz]

How have I ever implied that their are only two types of Muslims, ones who commit crimes and supporters of these crimes.

I've been saying the complete opposite.

You've taken my last quote, twisted it and made it go against my main point
in this debate, that most Muslims DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM AND THAT THEIR SILENCE ISN'T SUPPORT.

As for your brand of conservatism, I am saying that you are just as filled with hate for religions, races and cultures as a lot of violent Muslims are, but rather than blowing stuff up you just sit behind a computer and ***** and moan because you havn't got any balls to change the world. You don't want the world to change, except for it to get more traditionally American. Your thinking is backward.

And how do I not even know the basics of conservatism.


sh it I'll say it. there are only two types of religious people. ONes who kill in the name of their God, and ones who support them, either directly or indirectly.

[9sublime]

I'm not religious, and I believe it does more harm than good, but thats just absoloute bollocks.

[palerider]

How have I ever implied that their are only two types of Muslims, ones who commit crimes and supporters of these crimes.

I said that I dislike those who engage in terrorist activities, and those who condone, and encourage it with their silence. Then you implied that my dislike of those two groups of people meant that I had a specific dislike of muslisms as if there were only the two kinds.

You've taken my last quote, twisted it and made it go against my main point in this debate, that most Muslims DON'T SUPPORT TERRORISM AND THAT THEIR SILENCE ISN'T SUPPORT.

But you are quite wrong in this. In courts of law all over the earth, long legal precedent has been established that silence implies concent.

As for your brand of conservatism, I am saying that you are just as filled with hate for religions, races and cultures as a lot of violent Muslims are, but rather than blowing stuff up you just sit behind a computer and ***** and moan because you havn't got any balls to change the world. You don't want the world to change, except for it to get more traditionally American. Your thinking is backward.

The only change that I could make that would offer me any sort of safety from islam is to bow to mecca 5 times a day. I am not prepared to do that so I remain an infidel and an enemy of islam. Not because I choose to be their enemy, but because anyone who doesn't bow is their enemy as defined by their own religion. I am not the problem, islam is the problem.

And how do I not even know the basics of conservatism.

If you had an understanding of the basics of conservativism, you would know that there are 6 tenets that all conservatives agree on and to dissagree with any one is to make one something other than a conservative. The second tenet is to appreciate the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.

I appreciate all cultures and all religions, but that doesn't require me to attempt to befriend one, or apologize for one that actively wants to see me dead. It is islam that has declared war on me, not the other way around.

[9sublime]

I said that I dislike those who engage in terrorist activities, and those who condone, and encourage it with their silence. Then you implied that my dislike of those two groups of people meant that I had a specific dislike of muslisms as if there were only the two kinds.

Ok, sorry, misunderstanding. There are more than two types of Muslims, killers, and supporters of killing, and most Muslims fit into neither category.


But you are quite wrong in this. In courts of law all over the earth, long legal precedent has been established that silence implies concent.

Everyday life is not a courtroom.


The only change that I could make that would offer me any sort of safety from islam is to bow to mecca 5 times a day. I am not prepared to do that so I remain an infidel and an enemy of islam. Not because I choose to be their enemy, but because anyone who doesn't bow is their enemy as defined by their own religion. I am not the problem, islam is the problem.

And once again you fail to mention the millions of Muslims who don't want you dead.



If you had an understanding of the basics of conservativism, you would know that there are 6 tenets that all conservatives agree on and to dissagree with any one is to make one something other than a conservative. The second tenet is to appreciate the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems.


I appreciate all cultures and all religions, but that doesn't require me to attempt to befriend one, or apologize for one that actively wants to see me dead. It is islam that has declared war on me, not the other way around.

No, radical Islamic nutters have proclaimed war on you, not Islam as a whole. Your suspicious views on Islam have made you think it is a religion purely based on violence, but in reality it is no more violent than Christianity when it comes to its religious texts. Its just the way the US media portray it.

[Rokerijdude11]

Christianity has been one of the MOST Violent religions the world has ever Known the Crusades show us Just how this works ...........

[Fonz]

Christianity has been one of the MOST Violent religions the world has ever Known the Crusades show us Just how this works ...........

Christianity lead straight to the Jewish holocaust as well.


they are both violent religions.

[9sublime]

Don't get old palerider started on the crusades. Rather than admit it was as much a mindless slaughter as jihad he will pull out list after list of facts and figures that try and excuse the fact.

[Truth-Bringer]

Your quotes are not findings, they are claims, nothing more. The only thing "shown" was that the swiss did business, a lot of business with the nazis.

No, you haven't shown that at all. For your argument to hold any weight, you have to show that the Swiss held and moved Nazi money that had a direct bearing on the war. What has been shown is that some of the money was stashed there from "spoils" and theft of jewish property - but that wasn't done by Hitler - that was done by the lessers, who in many cases were antipating defeat.


Then feel free to provide some PROOF that the report is wrong. Suggesting that data is wrong based on no more than where it comes from constitutes an ad hominem circumstantial attack.

What it shows is that one official report damning the Swiss to hell and back was COMPLETELY off the mark and discredited by the Jewish community - coupled with an admission by one of the Nurembourg prosecutors that he could find no Swiss involvement in his financial crimes investigations, says the problem really wasn't as wide spread as has been claimed. If I have time I may do some further research on the other reports.


It does not change the fact that the swiss didn't get attacked, because they were hitler's bankers.

Would you stop spouting your worthless speculation and opinion as fact? Are you completely insane or something? Seriously, I'd like to know if you're on any medication or have been diagnosed with a mental condition...

Again, you have to show that large sums of money were moved in and out of Switzerland that benefited the Nazis war efforts specifically.


They were providing him liquid assets for his war effort in exchange for looted gold.

He didn't need the Swiss to liquidate anything for him, you dolt. The Nazis had the power to print whatever money they needed. They didn't even have to turn in gold to their own banks to do that, but they usually did, having learned from the earlier hyperinflation in Germany in the 20's.

[Truth-Bringer]

Further irrelavence since the topic of this thread isn't about the immigration policies of the US either.

You're the one attacking the character of the Swiss. Answer the question:

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?

[Rokerijdude11]

:d :d :d ??????????


they didnt like my hot-link id guess!!!! wow DISTURBING!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry THEY CHANGED IT ILL RE-LOAD what I posted


I AM SORRY EVERYONE HOTLINKING WASNT ALLOWED THEY PUT A NASSSSSSSSSTY PHOTO IN ITS PLACE I CORRECTED IT

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j48/Rokerijdude11/20040331-old-school-boer-met-shetla.jpg

[USMC the Almighty]

Do I even want to know what searches led you to come across such a picture, Roker?

[Rokerijdude11]

http://jan.moesen.nu/



cmon.................................



ya gotta admit .......................................


It made you bust-a-gut, didnt it !!!!!!!!!!!!!





I couldnt resist, I had to get a visual going for everyone..........


sorry:D :D :D

[USMC the Almighty]

I don't even know what you just said, but you should consider putting down the peace pipe for a little while.

[Rokerijdude11]

did you see what i just saw!!!!!!!!!


Holy MACKEREL!!!!!

Sorry Bout that

whew


nasssssssty

[vyo476]

I could have sworn there was a legit debate going on in this thread only a few hours ago...

EDIT: Oh wait...there was.

[Rokerijdude11]

carry on sailor

[9sublime]

This thread is doomed for the political humour section at this rate.

[USMC the Almighty]

This thread is doomed for the political humour section at this rate.

Especially if Roker keeps linking to gay porn.

[Rokerijdude11]

Do you ever READ?


I plain and simple told you what happened on the last page ???????????/??????? .....was that a picture of YOU? you sure seem at this point to be fitting the description!!!!!!!!!!!

for all of you who didnt read my reason for edit on that photo

I HOTLINKED A PHOTO OF A SHETLAND PONY..THERE WAS A SCRIPT AT THAT WEBSITE DESIGNED SO THAT IF YOU HOT LINKED THE PHOTO WOULD BE REPLACED bY A


PHOTOSHOPPED PHOTO OF SOME GUYS A@@HO*E IT WAS NASTY AND I REMOVED IT AS SOON AS IT CHANGED FROM ITS ORIGINAL PHOTO

[9sublime]

chill your beans i think he was joking.

[Truth-Bringer]

:d :d :d ??????????


they didnt like my hot-link id guess!!!! wow DISTURBING!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry THEY CHANGED IT ILL RE-LOAD what I posted


I AM SORRY EVERYONE HOTLINKING WASNT ALLOWED THEY PUT A NASSSSSSSSSTY PHOTO IN ITS PLACE I CORRECTED IT

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j48/Rokerijdude11/20040331-old-school-boer-met-shetla.jpg

That's not the shetland pony rider. That pony is way too big...

(And glad I missed the original photo...LOL)

[palerider]

You're the one attacking the character of the Swiss. Answer the question:

You're own source says 20,000 were allowed in while 25,000 were turned away. That's almost half allowed to safety. (Not to mention those aided by private swiss citizens who ignored their government's policy.) Seems like a very generous allowance during an all out war when every country around you has been conquered. Why are you avoiding my question, shetland pony rider? I'll ask it again: Would you want America to accept 200,000 people during a war if you knew it would drain our resources to the point that we would be invaded and defeated?

Once again, the premise of this thread was not about immigration. It was about why you believed that the swiss didn't get attacked by germany. It is clear that the swiss were not neutral. They supplied hitler with a steady stream of marks in exchange for plundered nazi gold. They didn't get attacked because they were hitler's bankers.

[palerider]

That's not the shetland pony rider. That pony is way too big...

(And glad I missed the original photo...LOL)

And this is your idea of humor? The dope really has taken its toll on you hasn't it? Posting pictures and hurling insult in lieu of actual debate?

[Truth-Bringer]

Once again, the premise of this thread was not about immigration.

Once again, you cannot answer a valid question. You had no trouble criticizing Swiss immigration policy earlier... Funny how you only have a problem answering questions when they prove your position to be fallacious... :p

[Truth-Bringer]

And this is your idea of humor?

No, it's his idea of how you actually look in real life.

[Dave]

Something just occured to me. Norway was neutral during WWII and they DID get attacked. Kind of goes against the premise of the thread doesn't it? Or have we gotten too far off topic for this now?

[Truth-Bringer]

Something just occured to me. Norway was neutral during WWII and they DID get attacked. Kind of goes against the premise of the thread doesn't it? Or have we gotten too far off topic for this now?

However, Norway was neutral during WW1 and they DIDN'T get attacked in that war...

Regarding the second world war, Hitler's decision to attack them during WWII was actually thought about over a course of months. They almost didn't take the chance. But Norway's problem wasn't that they were neutral, it's that they weren't neutral and demonstrably strong also. One cannot be a neutral passivist. One must be neutral, fortified, and have a heavily armed populace and a strong military.

The Swiss actually invited German generals into their country to observe their defenses. One of the Nazi generals later stated "We shall leave the little porcupine alone."

From the following link we see the Norwegians were not truly prepared for war as the Swiss were:

"The imminent threat of war in the late 1930s brought defence issues into the forefront of Norwegian political debate. The socialists had previously strongly opposed granting funds to the military, and were partly supported in this view by the Liberals." (http://www.cyberclip.com/Katrine/NorwayInfo/Articles/HistNorw.html)

We see also from the same source: "In occupied Norway civilian resistance grew from year to year. Secret military forces were also assembled and constituted something of a threat to the Germans." So they did start fighting back, but they were not prepared for this sort of resistance from the beginning. The Swiss were.

[Dave]

However, Norway was neutral during WW1 and they DIDN'T get attacked in that war...

Regarding the second world war, Hitler's decision to attack them during WWII was actually thought about over a course of months. They almost didn't take the chance. But Norway's problem wasn't that they were neutral, it's that they weren't neutral and demonstrably strong also. One cannot be a neutral passivist. One must be neutral, fortified, and have a heavily armed populace and a strong military.

The Swiss actually invited German generals into their country to observe their defenses. One of the Nazi generals later stated "We shall leave the little porcupine alone."

From the following link we see the Norwegians were not truly prepared for war as the Swiss were:

"The imminent threat of war in the late 1930s brought defence issues into the forefront of Norwegian political debate. The socialists had previously strongly opposed granting funds to the military, and were partly supported in this view by the Liberals." (http://www.cyberclip.com/Katrine/NorwayInfo/Articles/HistNorw.html)

We see also from the same source: "In occupied Norway civilian resistance grew from year to year. Secret military forces were also assembled and constituted something of a threat to the Germans." So they did start fighting back, but they were not prepared for this sort of resistance from the beginning. The Swiss were.

Or, Norway simply could have gotten onboard with the Allies in the beginning and saved themselves a lot of trouble. There wasn't enough funding in the world that would have gotten Norway ready for a full German invasion. Norway had something the Germans wanted (heavy water) and the Germans were going to take it, regardless of what Norway did. A strong military is a deterrent, but if you have something the enemy wants, he's going to try to take it. Even if Norway had improved its military, it wouldnt have had a chance against the German army. Norway was simply a more important military target than Switzerland. If the Germans had actually put enough research time into their own atom bomb, taking Norway could have been their key to winning the war. Only after they had done some research did they realize that they couldn't complete a nuclear program by the end of the war.

[Truth-Bringer]

Even if Norway had improved its military, it wouldnt have had a chance against the German army.

You mean the same German army that relied on a 1,250,000 horses and even continued to use a horse cavalry?

From "World War 2, The Rest of the Story" by Richard Maybury: "A little known fact is that the Germans actually had two armies. One was the high tech mechanized force you have seen so often in movies. The aircraft, tanks, and artilleries are impressive, no doubt about it. But this force was small. It was only the tip of the spear. The rest of the spear, the main body of the army, was foot soldiers and horses. Yes, horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force was poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it was at its peak. Lined up ready to strike at Stalin were 3,350 tanks. And 650,000 horses. Hollywood devotes a lot of film to the tanks, but how often have you seen the thousands of horses? Most of the horses were used as substitutes for trucks, but the Germans did have a horse cavalry division that was thrown against the Russians. (In contrast) when the British and Americans invaded Normandy in June 1944, they were fully mechanized, while the German army was still dependent on 1,250,000 horses."



If the Germans had actually put enough research time into their own atom bomb, taking Norway could have been their key to winning the war. Only after they had done some research did they realize that they couldn't complete a nuclear program by the end of the war.

You mean the same Germans who didn't even have the engineering skills to construct a single aircraft carrier?:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=740

Meanwhile the U.S. built 146 of them in 44 months.

[Dave]

Even with Norway's depleted military, Germany committed over 107,000 troops, and 20,000 vehicles, 109,000 tons of supplies, and yes, 16,000 horses, to this invasion. That's not even mentioning the massive naval effort involved. If they needed more for the invasion, they would have got more. Do you really think Norway could have stood up to that even if they had bulked up their military? Heavy water is critical to the early stages of nuclear weapons. Norway is one of the few places you can get it occuring naturally. My point isn't that Norway couldn't defend itself. My point is that Norway had something the Germans wanted, and even if it took the entire German Army to gain control of Norway's vast heavy water resources, Germany was going to take it. If you have something that the enemy wants, nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to get you out of a fight.

[vyo476]

You mean the same German army that relied on a 1,250,000 horses and even continued to use a horse cavalry?

From "World War 2, The Rest of the Story" by Richard Maybury: "A little known fact is that the Germans actually had two armies. One was the high tech mechanized force you have seen so often in movies. The aircraft, tanks, and artilleries are impressive, no doubt about it. But this force was small. It was only the tip of the spear. The rest of the spear, the main body of the army, was foot soldiers and horses. Yes, horses. When Hitler's massive invasion force was poised on the Soviet frontier in June 1941, it was at its peak. Lined up ready to strike at Stalin were 3,350 tanks. And 650,000 horses. Hollywood devotes a lot of film to the tanks, but how often have you seen the thousands of horses? Most of the horses were used as substitutes for trucks, but the Germans did have a horse cavalry division that was thrown against the Russians. (In contrast) when the British and Americans invaded Normandy in June 1944, they were fully mechanized, while the German army was still dependent on 1,250,000 horses."





You mean the same Germans who didn't even have the engineering skills to construct a single aircraft carrier?:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=740

Meanwhile the U.S. built 146 of them in 44 months.

You know, you're right. The German Army was really just an inept group of backwards idiots.

It's not like they conquered all of continental Europe or anything.

[Truth-Bringer]

You know, you're right. The German Army was really just an inept group of backwards idiots.

It's not like they conquered all of continental Europe or anything.

This only means the rest of continental Europe was even more inept. The Germans could have never held Europe very long. And the defeat in Russia secured their demise. They would have foolishly never quit trying to expand.

Since an army becomes weaker as it occupies more territory, they would have eventually collapsed regardless.

The root truth is this - if people fail to resist being conquered, they will be conquered. If they want to resist be conquered, they will fight to the death. If everyone fought the Germans to the death, then there would have been no slaves to capture afterwards...now would there...

And thus less resources to "fuel" the German army. Not that slaves could mass produce anything on par with America though.

[Truth-Bringer]

My point is that Norway had something the Germans wanted, and even if it took the entire German Army to gain control of Norway's vast heavy water resources, Germany was going to take it.

Germany wanted Russia too, and used a hell of lot more resources in the process than they used to take Norway...which would seem to indicate that they wanted Russia more...yet they didn't take it.

[Truth-Bringer]

You know, you're right. The German Army was really just an inept group of backwards idiots.

It's not like they conquered all of continental Europe or anything.

On another note, since when does conquering others through brutal, violent force indicate that someone is forward-thinking?

[Dave]

Germany wanted Russia too, and used a hell of lot more resources in the process than they used to take Norway...which would seem to indicate that they wanted Russia more...yet they didn't take it.

Yet they were still attacked. The premise of your original post is that if you don't pick a side in the fight and remain neutral, and as long as you keep up a military deterrent, you won't get attacked. My point is that no matter how neutral you stay, sometimes you are going to have to either fight, or roll over and give in. If Norway had chosen a side in WWII, maybe they would have been able to mount a meaningful defense. Neutrality was not the best choice for Norway in WWII, and it is not the best choice for America today.

[Abraxis Axis]

w7gWB7IzxtU

[Dave]

What are you? 12? How ****ing retarded do you have to be to post a cheech & chong video as an insult? Go toke up somewhere else dumbass.

[Rokerijdude11]

did he say anywhere it was an insult? or it was directed at anyone here?it didnt say anything just a video? maybe he posted the wrong forum? maybe he/she is 12? anyhow

Actually it was a BIT amusing as i hadnt heard that in 25 years!!! hell i went to you tube after this post!!! they have all of C&C stuff on there it was nostalgic

thanks for jarring the memory banks Abby

[Abraxis Axis]

sorry dave its not all about you

[Truth-Bringer]

Yet they were still attacked. The premise of your original post is that if you don't pick a side in the fight and remain neutral, and as long as you keep up a military deterrent, you won't get attacked.

I've never claimed any policy was 100% effective. And secondly, the context is that terrorist attacks made against us ARE NOT BEING MADE BY A NATION STATE.

My point is that no matter how neutral you stay, sometimes you are going to have to either fight, or roll over and give in.

If your point is "no matter how neutral you are you'll eventually have to fight" - that's refuted by the Swiss example.

If Norway had chosen a side in WWII, maybe they would have been able to mount a meaningful defense. Neutrality was not the best choice for Norway in WWII, and it is not the best choice for America today.

This is where you're wrong. Why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

[Dave]

I've never claimed any policy was 100% effective. And secondly, the context is that terrorist attacks made against us ARE NOT BEING MADE BY A NATION STATE.



If your point is "no matter how neutral you are you'll eventually have to fight" - that's refuted by the Swiss example.



This is where you're wrong. Why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

The Swiss didn't have to fight because there was nothing in the country worth taking. They had wealth, but they made it very clear that the Nazis were welcome to that. What else was there to fight for? We in the U.S. have something that Islamic fundamentalists want. If you are willing to give in to their demands and fly a crescent moon flag over the White House and have the President swear allegance to Allah, then you are right. We won't need to fight after that. If you have something the enemy wants, you have to either give it to them, or fight them. Neutrality is not an option. The U.S. is the target of terrorists because of all of the reasons you claim they will not attack us. Our lifestyle is an afront to their religion. They will not focus on countries like New Zealand or Sweden when the U.S. is the most obvious offender. Being the wealthiest country in the world makes us a target. As for being an armed populace, Israelis are armed to the teeth, but that doesn't help a lot when your favorited resteraunt blows up.

Nation states are not the threat. It is the groups that rogue nation states that support that pose the threat. Al Qaieda's goal is not to get a massive army and march up through Mexico and fight battles with our military. It is to create instability through constant attacks until the government fails. That is when they feel they will be able to step in with an Islamic government.

[Truth-Bringer]

The Swiss didn't have to fight because there was nothing in the country worth taking. They had wealth, but they made it very clear that the Nazis were welcome to that.

I see now that you're going to do nothing but lie since your argument has been beaten. The Swiss never said any such thing. They made it very clear they would fight the Nazis to the last man if they invaded.

What else was there to fight for? We in the U.S. have something that Islamic fundamentalists want.

LOL. Really? Please tell us exactly what they want?

If they want something, they'll have to invade and occupy us to take it. Please explain how Al Qaeda will invade and occupy the U.S.

If you are willing to give in to their demands and fly a crescent moon flag over the White House and have the President swear allegance to Allah, then you are right. We won't need to fight after that.

Straw Man. You're full of fallacies on this round, because you know you've been beaten. You need to check your Cognitive Dissonance and accept the truth.

If you have something the enemy wants, you have to either give it to them, or fight them. Neutrality is not an option. The U.S. is the target of terrorists because of all of the reasons you claim they will not attack us. Our lifestyle is an afront to their religion. They will not focus on countries like New Zealand or Sweden when the U.S. is the most obvious offender. Being the wealthiest country in the world makes us a target.

Except for the fact that neither Bin Laden nor any of the Fatwa's have mentioned that as a reason. Switzerland is an incredibly wealthy country also, yet they're not attacking them.

As for being an armed populace, Israelis are armed to the teeth, but that doesn't help a lot when your favorited resteraunt blows up.

But it does prevent you from being invaded and successfully invaded by a Nation State. Iraqis are armed also - and they are preventing us from achieving our objective there, are they not?


Nation states are not the threat. It is the groups that rogue nation states that support that pose the threat.

Then Nation States are ultimately the threat if they're supporting the threat. How we're dealing with Iraq as a rogue nation state though, is failing miserably, and Bush has admitted that: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism)

Bush: ‘My Stupid Invasion Of Iraq Has Helped Terrorists’

"Bush said that in the spring of 2005, bin Laden also instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on an al-Qaida plan to attack sites outside Iraq. ‘Our intelligence community reports that a senior al-Qaida leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations,’ Bush said. ‘Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al-Qaida might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq'."

But even after admitting that his unnecessary war has endangered innocent people all over the world, they still won’t impeach him.


Al Qaieda's goal is not to get a massive army and march up through Mexico and fight battles with our military. It is to create instability through constant attacks until the government fails. That is when they feel they will be able to step in with an Islamic government.

ROTFLMAO!!!! An Islamic government in the U.S.... LOL. What will you think of next??? Then they'll have to invade and occupy at some point. And they cannot do that.

Again, an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality because:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

[Dave]

I see now that you're going to do nothing but lie since your argument has been beaten. The Swiss never said any such thing. They made it very clear they would fight the Nazis to the last man if they invaded.



LOL. Really? Please tell us exactly what they want?

If they want something, they'll have to invade and occupy us to take it. Please explain how Al Qaeda will invade and occupy the U.S.



Straw Man. You're full of fallacies on this round, because you know you've been beaten. You need to check your Cognitive Dissonance and accept the truth.



Except for the fact that neither Bin Laden nor any of the Fatwa's have mentioned that as a reason. Switzerland is an incredibly wealthy country also, yet they're not attacking them.



But it does prevent you from being invaded and successfully invaded by a Nation State. Iraqis are armed also - and they are preventing us from achieving our objective there, are they not?



Then Nation States are ultimately the threat if they're supporting the threat. How we're dealing with Iraq as a rogue nation state though, is failing miserably, and Bush has admitted that: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism)

Bush: ‘My Stupid Invasion Of Iraq Has Helped Terrorists’

"Bush said that in the spring of 2005, bin Laden also instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on an al-Qaida plan to attack sites outside Iraq. ‘Our intelligence community reports that a senior al-Qaida leader, Abu Faraj al-Libi, went further and suggested that bin Laden actually send Rabia, himself, to Iraq to help plan external operations,’ Bush said. ‘Abu Faraj later speculated that if this effort proved successful, al-Qaida might one day prepare the majority of its external operations from Iraq'."

But even after admitting that his unnecessary war has endangered innocent people all over the world, they still won’t impeach him.




ROTFLMAO!!!! An Islamic government in the U.S.... LOL. What will you think of next??? Then they'll have to invade and occupy at some point. And they cannot do that.

Again, an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality because:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

No fallacy here. Everything I said about al-Qaida is straight out of bin Ladin's own speeches. In his famous offer of a truce to George W. Bush, one of his conditions was that Bush accept Allah and make Islam the official religion of America. I'm not saying that it is rational to think that there will be an Islamic government in America, I'm saying that these are al-Qaida's goals, and this is what they are trying to do.

Once again, I'm not talking about a nation state here. You are simply attacking a straw man when you are debating this point. I'm talking about terrorist groups attacking America with the financial support of nation states. If America declared neutrality tomorrow we would still be getting terrorist attacks. I don't think anyone could debate against that.

It seems that you are trimming your theory now. It started out saying "if you are neutral, you won't get attacked." Then it was "if you are neutral and have good defenses you won't get attacked." Now it seems like its "you'll get attacked, but if you have a big military it won't be a successful attack." Have you completely given up on the neutrality portion of your argument?

[Castle]

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.
Umm, ever read some of the stuff Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had to say on the subject?
"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
Sounds to me like neutrality may buy ya some time but this nut plans on killing you or converting you by the end of the day.

-Castle

[Truth-Bringer]

Umm, ever read some of the stuff Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had to say on the subject?
"The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world."
Sounds to me like neutrality may buy ya some time but this nut plans on killing you or converting you by the end of the day.

-Castle

I've read some of his stuff that was mistranslated and used for propaganda purposes, such as this:

"Wiped off the Map" - Rumor of the Century

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5866

[Truth-Bringer]

No fallacy here. Everything I said about al-Qaida is straight out of bin Ladin's own speeches. In his famous offer of a truce to George W. Bush, one of his conditions was that Bush accept Allah and make Islam the official religion of America. I'm not saying that it is rational to think that there will be an Islamic government in America, I'm saying that these are al-Qaida's goals, and this is what they are trying to do.

I don't see such a condition here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm

Here's an accuate translation of that text:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8419

Produce and present evidence to support your claim.


Once again, I'm not talking about a nation state here. You are simply attacking a straw man when you are debating this point. I'm talking about terrorist groups attacking America with the financial support of nation states. If America declared neutrality tomorrow we would still be getting terrorist attacks. I don't think anyone could debate against that.

My argument still stands, since no nation state would want to get caught helping a terrorist who was planting a nuclear bomb in the U.S. This would guarantee that the current rulers would be out of power after a U.S. invasion.


It seems that you are trimming your theory now. It started out saying "if you are neutral, you won't get attacked." Then it was "if you are neutral and have good defenses you won't get attacked." Now it seems like its "you'll get attacked, but if you have a big military it won't be a successful attack." Have you completely given up on the neutrality portion of your argument?

No, I'm neither revising or trimming my theory. I just stated it as neutrality for the sake of simplicity at the beginning, but my complete position is that you must be neutral and strong, and prepared to fight as an insurgency if you are invaded and occupied.