upvote
We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.
reply
USAid did "good" for the world, but because people took it for granted and it wasn't in the news until it was stopped (which has cost lives).
reply
WW2 was long enough ago that no one you end up talking about it actually experienced it themselves, but it's recent enough that people who felt their country did "Good", can still ride that high wave without being pulled down by everything that came after.
reply
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.

This is a completely mad assessment. Haven't you noticed the massive issues with scientific, health, and social funding globally now the US taxpayer has stopped bankrolling it?

reply
Bankrolling is an editorial word that implies almost a one way benefit.
reply
Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.
reply
> closing their borders to fleeing Jews.

This is such a landmine topic, because most countries did this, including the UK and the US; see e.g. the MS St. Louis. This is why there are several "heroes of the resistance" that in modern parlance are "people smugglers", forging credentials and visas in order to help people escape.

Today you see exactly the same hostile attitudes to non-white refugees of basically every war except Ukraine.

reply
Despite what Hollywood says, WW2 was more to do with German militarism and expansionism than the Jewish question. The Allies were certainly willing to use pro-Jewish sentiments and some Jewish troops, but it was never presented as the main issue.
reply
I think Hollywood says exactly that. Most WW2 films are about war, not the Holocaust.
reply
Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B <> Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral.

I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single country on the European continent can be considered "neutral". So maybe with this lens, Switzerland was "the most neutral" if you compare with others?

reply
There is a difference between someone running from persecution and someone leaving because they might be conscripted into invasion they agree with or because they dont like the economy. Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here. You could sorta a little equate Ukrainians, a little.

And yes, actual historical events and motivations of past actors matter.

Yes, there were multiple fully on-the-nazi side countries, Swiss were not them. That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.

reply
> That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.

Yeah, even when I tried my best to, apparently the labels just fire up too much emotions. I've removed the country names completely as it's irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss.

> Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here

I didn't do anything of the like in the original text, but good try!

reply
"Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews."

That still counts as neutral, as does Sweden's activities. Switzerland interned allied airmen and was even bombed but stayed out of the war.

There is a wonderful quote from the Irish parliament. The Irish government wanted to be neutral, but one of the politicians asked "but who shall we be neutral against ?" (By the way, the nature of the Irish Free State's "neutrality" remains controversial to this day, and again, I could point to examples both ways.) It is hard to think of any fully neutral countries in WW2, partly due to the large empires spanning Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Maybe certain Latin American countries, except some of them joined the war at the end and/or took in Nazi refugees like Eichmann.

reply
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world.

As a non-Swiss, non-American, I can assure you you need to study both American and Swiss modern history. The Swiss were far, far too cozy with the Nazis, and the Americans have done a spectacular amount of good since WWII ended.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Difficult to defend America as reality-based when it's going around renaming bodies of water that do not belong to it.

Also I'm not sure people understand what Swiss (or for that matter Irish) neutrality means.

reply
"Difficult to defend America as reality-based when it's going around renaming bodies of water that do not belong to it."

I didn't claim that Trump was reality-based.

"Also I'm not sure people understand what Swiss (or for that matter Irish) neutrality means."

It's a moral facade that allows them to dodge responsibility. The US has given far more than Switzerland, and also gets blamed far more, for not giving yet more. How does that make sense? As I said, the European worldview is not typically reality-based.

reply
With great power comes great responsibility, it's not that complicated a concept.

Switzerland doesn't have any aspirations to be the global hegemon, so they don't get graded on the global hegemon scale.

reply
Another saying is: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

The US sent billions to Ukraine, and what did we get in return? Europeans telling us that "the last time the US did anything good for the world was WW2".

It's not about hegemons vs non-hegemons either. China sends war supplies to Russia and Europe barely complains.

How about this: Consider our loss of support for Ukraine as an abandonment of aspirations of hegemony in Eastern Europe. Bingo, now we no longer have "great power" in that region, nor "great responsibility". Ukraine is your problem now.

Ultimately, you're just playing language games. There's no reason a Swiss taxpayer should be less responsible than an American taxpayer. This is all just anti-Americanism.

People like to scapegoat the US whenever they're dissatisfied regarding anything, virtually anywhere around the world. There's frequently a creative way to blame the US. And because people are impossible to please, and they are always dissatisfied, the US is always blamed. I'm sick of it.

reply
The thing is, if you don't help us in Eastern Europe, you don't just lose hegemonial status there. You lose all of Europe and with that the very foundation of your power.

It's not Anti-Americanism, but if you want to go out with the belle of the ball, you actually have to try.

You don't get to date her by default, and she is getting increasingly tired of your entitled attitude.

Ukraine already is our problem, the vast majority of support comes from Europe. It's your continued insistence that you don't even have to try while expecting us to stay by your side that is the issue. A friend that keeps asking for more while not helping in need is not a friend at all.

reply
>The thing is, if you don't help us in Eastern Europe, you don't just lose hegemonial status there. You lose all of Europe and with that the very foundation of your power.

If that means you're going to stop blaming us for everything, it sounds fantastic.

BTW if you think Europe is "the very foundation" of American power you're delusional.

>You don't get us by default, and we are getting increasingly tired of your entitled attitude.

As I stated in another comment thread:

"For years our leaders told you to be less dependent on us. Now you're speaking as though your dependency on us was some kind of favor you were doing for us. It's mind-blowing how out-of-touch you guys can be."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49574103

reply
You basically started the whole thing by creating and supporting Maidan (like sooo many "revolutions" in the world), so please just shut up and take care your insane clown posse doesn't start WW3...
reply
I doubt that. But there's a broader lesson here. Many critics of US foreign policy assume, without justification, that any US foreign policy involvement means the US is entirely to blame for any suboptimal outcome. Positive outcomes (for example, a long, unprecedented period of peace and prosperity in Europe) are conveniently excluded from the analysis.

Of course, it's always possible to raise your expectations so that every outcome counts as "negative", so you always get a chance to blame the US.

The Swiss are very clever. By staying quiet they avoid responsibility for anything or blame for anything. When the US stays neutral, we are told we are "complicit" or "abandoning allies".

reply
Euromaidan was (a) good (b) organic (you cannot pay people enough to get shot in the street) and (c) to the extent that there was "US" sponsorship, it was mostly by the Open Society Foundation, which is run by a Hungarian Jew who fled the Nazis and therefore knows what oppression looks like, and has donated the majority of his fortune to the freedom of Eastern Europe. He's 96.
reply
> funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2

Cut them some slack - its the last time they "won" a war.

reply
The argument is much cleaner if immutable past actions remain un-weaponized.

If somebody wants to tap me for reparations over chattel slavery in the US, and all I can say is that my in-country ancestors fought for the Union.

Which, along with $5, will get you a cup of coffee down' the beanery.

reply