It’s hard to believe that 96 years ago today marks the end of World War I, when peace was declared in the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. In 1954, US Congress expanded the holiday to include all veterans, so what began as Armistice Day in 1919 officially became known to Americans as Veterans Day. However, to those in Britain, Australia, Canada and much of the Commonwealth, the day is still known as Armistice or Remembrance Day, when it’s common to wear a red poppy honoring those who have died in service to their country. The day is a holiday honoring those who’ve served in the military, a day to remember the sacrifices they – and their families – have made.
Coincidentally, I spent a fair part of the last week or so reading about World War II and ruminating on a trip Trav and I took with his family to Hawaii shortly before we moved to Switzerland. A family vacation planned by my mother-in-law, we toured the USS Bowfin submarine on Oahu, visited the sites at Pearl Harbor, and took a boat tour out to see the shattered hull of the USS Arizona where she rests in a watery grave just 40 feet below the surface. The battleship was one of the many ships bombed by the Japanese without warning at Pearl Harbor in 1941 while the US was still in negotiations to maintain peace.
Several days after visiting Pearl Harbor, our two rental vans full of 14 – 14! – family members spent the better part of an afternoon adventuring up narrow, rutted dirt roads in search of the old “homestead.” Trav’s family immigrated to Hawaii in the not-so distant past, and his grandparents called the island home for decades. He still has family there.
Through what soon turned into a downpour, Trav’s mom navigated us to the cabin. We investigated the perimeter, taking in the blooming fruit trees slick with rain, and then poked around inside, taking photos of the sloping floor, admiring old family portraits still hanging, and fiddling with an antiquated record player that refused to yield any music.
At the cabin, Trav’s family swapped memories and traced their heritage. I watched, marveling at their sense of family history. Even then, I didn’t fully understood why it was so important to my mother-in-law to have this family vacation in Hawaii. She’d been to the island many times and had already visited Pearl Harbor and many of the sites we were re-visiting. She clearly wanted to share the cabin where their ancestors had lived, but it was more than that.
Travis’s grandma was a child on the island when it was bombed, and his grandpa later served as a pilot during the war. Over the years, I’ve heard Trav’s family tell stories about that day in 1941, stories they continue to pass down to younger generations. Pearl Harbor was an attack on all Americans, but for Trav’s family, it was more personal. For them, it was an attack on their country, their community, and their home.
During the visit to the family homestead and Pearl Harbor, I was just an observer. My only knowledge of Pearl Harbor before this trip came from school books and TV specials. Though my grandpa served in WWII, he served in Europe. He rarely talked about the war, and never Pearl Harbor. My dad served in the Navy on board the USS Coral Sea during the Vietnam conflict, but I know almost nothing about his years there. My family tree is much more splintered and forked than Trav’s, my views on family are very different, and it’s not always easy for me to appreciate the gravity of a trip such as this, a trip to reaffirm family heritage and connections through generations.
In the months since our visit to Hawaii, I’ve thought about it a lot. I’ve come to more fully appreciate the trip as a once-in-a-lifetime family vacation for which I’m grateful to have been included, but also for its historical value that draws all Americans together in patriotism.
Sometimes the best way to understand your country is to leave it for awhile. Since that trip, we’ve moved halfway around the world, landing in the very heart of Europe, surrounded by countries that once supported both the Axis and Allied Powers during WWII. But here in neutral Switzerland, Veterans Day doesn’t exist.
So what of that?
I kept mulling it over, trying to understand how a country geographically located in the heart of a world conflict could remain neutral.
The why I could understand. It’s logical that a government would try to protect its people and property from harm, and Switzerland has a long, prestigious history of diplomacy the world over. But then why would a country with a long history of neutrality have compulsory military service?
Currently, Swiss men typically are called up for conscription beginning at the age of 18 or 19. About 20,000 men and women (including volunteers) complete basic training every year. The Swiss military is shrinking -numbering over 800,000 soldiers in the 1980s, the military currently stands at only about 150,000 with plans to further reduce the size, and budget. Historically, they’ve maintained a rather robust military, seemingly at odds with its emphasis on diplomacy and neutrality.
For me, understanding this relationship required viewing it in a historical context. Switzerland has a long history of neutrality, or more accurately, armed neutrality. I really never thought too much about what that meant until we moved here. I just always assumed neutrality meant a country simply did not participate in global conflicts, which I suppose in hindsight was rather naïve.
More accurately, declaring armed neutrality precludes a country from showing preference or deference – at least in theory – to any members engaged in conflict; it doesn’t mean they don’t play a role or take action during armed conflict. This includes the right to militarily defend one’s country if attacked, despite being politically neutral – hence the need to maintain a military. Being neutral means not having enemies, but it also means not having allies, which underscores the need for an army as the sole means of military defense should diplomacy fail.
I find the concept of armed neutrality intriguing.
Clearly, the US has a history of military action, but prior to our involvement in both World Wars I and II, the US had also declared and maintained armed neutrality until direct attacks (for example, the bombing of Pearl Harbor) drew us into war.
So why wasn’t Switzerland drawn into direct military action during WWII? Why didn’t Hitler invade? Or bomb them?
I’ve repeatedly heard that it’s because of Switzerland’s “neutrality” and to a lesser extent, that the difficult terrain and mountain ranges prevented occupation. Granted, the mountains form a formidable barrier, but I find it hard to believe this would have been sufficient. And France and Belgium’s neutrality didn’t dissuade Hitler from invading and occupying those countries.
Interestingly enough, continued accusations against Switzerland re-surfaced in the 1990s with a lawsuit filed in New York, alleging that Jewish assets throughout the Holocaust had been knowingly transferred and held by Swiss banks. A friend in Switzerland recently made a similar statement, which set me to digging for more information.
In order to ultimately lay to rest myths and rumors about the actual role that the Swiss government, institutions, and private companies played throughout WWII, the Swiss Federal Council appointed the Bergier commission in 1996. The task for this international team was not to attack or criticize Switzerland, but rather to better understand its role during the war within a historical context.
With a budget of 22 million francs and unlimited access to private and public documents, the commission concluded its research in 2002, which resulted in 25 comprehensive volumes analyzing the movement of assets, Switzerland’s relationship with Nazi Germany, its refugee policy, the exchange of Swiss francs for gold, and the manufacture and movement of arms, all within the legal framework of neutrality as dictated by the Hague Convention of 1907.
I spent the better part of a day reading through the summaries of these documents that are available online. Presumably because of their length, they aren’t available in entirety. I was so fascinated by the summaries, I followed the links to buy hard copies but was disappointed to find that not only does the link appear to be old (the publisher no longer has them available for purchase), but the total cost to purchase the volumes is 1460 chf.
It’s unfortunate that despite the considerable effort and cost invested to fund this research, it isn’t openly accessible. However, the fact that the government commissioned the research and made it available publicly, at least in summary, is commendable.
Ultimately, the report answered many of the questions I had about Switzerland’s role during WWII, outlining how they were able to pacify Nazi Germany, at times by violating the terms of their neutrality. I continue to struggle with the very concept of neutrality, in part because it underscores a fundamental difference between Swiss culture and our own. I now understand the idea more fully, both for its merits and its shortcomings.
It’s unquestionable that the Swiss love their country as much as we love ours and that diplomacy and peacekeeping missions are invaluable. But on a day like November 11th, it feels alien to be in a place that doesn’t acknowledge this day as a holiday. Folks don’t wear red poppies or visit cemeteries to place wreathes, flowers, or keepsakes.
In Switzerland, it’s business as usual.
Bergier Commission Summary
“All the clearing credits were used by the German and Italian armies to buy Swiss machines, agricultural products and, above all, war materials, so that the loans granted by the Swiss government contravened the law of neutrality. On balance, this state loan can be regarded as a «toll» paid to the Axis powers, which, until 1944, effectively controlled Switzerland’s foreign trade by way of their counter-blockade.” ICE Vol 3.
“Throughout the duration of the Nazi régime, the companies we looked at were all able to maintain their autonomy and their private sector character. At the same time, through their manufacturing activities and the employment of a vast number of workers, they contributed to the rallying and expansion of the German economy, thus supporting the Nazi system. The entrepreneurs were of the opinion that this was their duty towards the national-socialist state, regardless of what political system that state presented them with and of its legality.” ICE Vol 6
“German assets in Switzerland which, according to the Washington Agreement of May 1946, were supposed to be liquidated, eventually remained to a large extent untouched by these events thanks to the obdurate and stalling Swiss negotiation tactics, and in the course of the fifties were returned to their German owners.” ICE Vol 9
“…in 1945 the principle was agreed on that all German assets outside of Germany were to be confiscated. Switzerland was also
invited to the conference table (chapter 7). It appeared that the Allies had been very well informed on the gold transactions between the Reichsbank, the SNB, and the Swiss commercial banks. They estimated the gold that had been stolen from central banks and which the SNB had bought from the Reichsbank had a value of at least 800 million francs.” ICE Vol 16
“For Swiss refugee policy, two years were of particular importance. In 1938, Switzerland was involved in the marking of passports of German Jews with a «J» , and in August 1942 it closed its borders for persons persecuted «for racial reasons only».” ICE Vol 17
“The closing of the borders in the summer of 1942 was justified in part by the food supply situation. Sources prove, however, that neither the food supply situation nor military or political pressure from abroad played a decisive role in the closing of the borders. The question, therefore, arises why Switzerland, in spite of the knowledge it had, and without any stringent necessity, in the following months rejected thousands of refugees and got involved in national socialist crimes by abandoning refugees to their persecutors. In the present volume, anti-Semitism appears as an important reason for either not perceiving the persecution of Jews, or not drawing the necessary consequences in favor of the victims from this knowledge. This appears clearly from a comparison with policy regarding those refugees who had fled the repercussions of the Russian revolution and had found refuge and financial support in Switzerland. While in this case the all pervasive anti-communism worked in favor of the refugees, the rejection of Jewish refugees was motivated by a widespread anti-semitic attitude. Anti-Semitism in Switzerland was culturally, socially and politically founded and linked to forms of Christian hatred of Jews. It was embedded in a population policy which had been fighting the «Überfremdung» («over-foreignization») of Switzerland, and in particular the socalled «Verjudung» («over-Jewishization») since World War One (chapter 1.3). There were other factors affecting the definition of Swiss refugee policy, however, factors of national as well as international origin. At a national level, in particular xenophobia and the discourse of «Überfremdung» (chapter 2.2.2), economic protectionism (chapter 2.2.3), concerns regarding supply and national security (2.2.4) and the concept of a humanitarian mission (chapters 2.2.1 and 6) are to be mentioned. The interplay and incompatibility of these motives made it impossible for the Swiss decision makers to decide for a more generous admission of Jewish refugees, in spite of their extensive knowledge of the national socialist policy of persecution and destruction.” ICE Vol 17