Smidgey

Actually, Switzerland provided a home for 300,000 refugees, many of whom were Jews. Furthermore, the Germans created invasion plans which were never put into action (c.f. Operation Tannenbaum). The Swiss held these plans at bay by having a massive deterrant to a German invasion. Germany would be stuck in a quagmire in Switzerland and they knew it.

Furthermore, the Swiss Nazi party was actually badly defeated because of the Swiss systems of personal liberty and strong national pride.

Not to mention the fact that had the Western powers taken the position that Switzerland had at the end of WWI, WWII probably would never have occured.

Also, many Swiss people went to fight for the allies as volunteers. Not to mention that they were still heavily bombed during the war by nations involved in the conflict, yet they only ever used their fighters for defensive purposes (such as when they grounded American planes that bombed them).

Perhaps you think it is okay to use collectivist terms and call a whole nation cowardly that:

a) Allows refugees to live within its borders during a conflict it was not a part of.
b) Creates a strong national defence with thousands of soliders willing to surrender their lives if they were ever invaded (need I remind you that the UK only became involved in the Second World War when it suited their interests as well, hardly a cry for liberty and freedom in 1939).
c) Has individuals who join the allies as volunteers.

I hardly think it is cowardly to hold to ones ideals. I think it is morally repugnant to kill and I don't think I could ever bring myself to do so. Does that make me a coward, that I would sooner go to prison than take another life? You yourself are a Christian, could you imagine Jesus with an assualt rifle wearing a pair of khakis? It seems that your morality only extends into a time of peace, yet when war breaks out between states (not individuals), you would be happy to kill to your hearts content.

P.S. Don't take my defence of Switzerland to mean I think Switzerland is a utopia. It has it's problems, no doubt. However, you would rather that such a small nation go down the route of the Netherlands and have bloodshed and starvation rather than a place for refugees to congregate. Highly moral of you!

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Westcountryman

Switzerland is not the only Country to have taken on refugees. I also don't consider their non-involvement either principled or 'moral'. Whilst the rest of Europe either fought against the Axis or were invaded, Switzerland was quite happy to sit by and do nothing, hardly noble.

I commend those who fought with the Allies, I don't commend the non-action of the Swiss government.

At least the UK and France fought against Tyranny eh!

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Smidgey

The only reason they were not invaded (as I made clear) was because they deterred an invasion by creating a strong national defence.

Furthermore, I never once argued it was the only country to take on refugees, I argued that it did take on refugees and that this would be impossible had they not been neutral. A bit of a non sequitur there, although I'm sure you would be happier had Switzerland suffered from famine, bloodshed and the Jewish refugees be sent to the concentration camps instead.

Again, I would like to ask you; would you prefer if Switzerland had declared war on Germany, caused a lot of bloodshed and probably famine (like what happened in the low countries) and eventually end up being defeated offering no home for the Jews that had escaped there?

So why did you blame the Swiss? The media in Switzerland were constantly attacking the Nazi's, much to the dismay of the Swiss government.

That was not the reason for entering the conflict. The Tyranny was only created as an outcome of the First World War. Not to mention the fact that the British government had to institute tyranny in order to defeat tyranny, very noble indeed! Although the Nazi's were vile and digusting, I think you are painting a pretty picture of the allied governments. You don't think the British government ever committed atrocities and acts of tyranny during this and other conflicts in the recent past?

Again, if we had the neutral position of Sweden and Switzerland at the end of WWI, WWII would never have happened.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Westcountryman

Bad wording on my part - my apologies.

Perhaps not, but that was what it became. I agree that the conditions in Britain during the war were hardly ideal (and I don't pretend that the government was perfect or ideal), but at least invasive policies - such as ID cards - were scrapped after the war.

Shame we can't say the same for the current administration.

__________________
Manus haec inimica tyrannis ense petit placidam sub libertate quietam - "This hand of mine, which is hostile to tyrants, seeks by the sword quiet peace under liberty."

Smidgey

I agree with you concerning the current administration, but I don't think it was right during the Second World War either. The ends do not justify the means.

It saddens me greatly that those millions had to die in a war that could so easily have been avoided if we had moral individuals who believe in rights in power...

Such a shame.

__________________
How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might!

-Georg Friedrich Händel

Besoeker

Somewhat off topic.....
Given that the population of China is 1.2 bn, it is a reasonable point to make that there are at least 1.2 bn (taking account of others who live elsewhere) people who speak Chinese of various dialects as you say. Many of them are evidently unintelligible to others.
I've seen this at first hand a few times. One particular incident stuck in my mind. I went with a Chinese friend to a shop in Gerrard Street in London's Chinatown. At the checkout the cashier said the price in Cantonese. My friend, who spoke Mandarin, just looked blank.
As it happens, I had just about sufficient understanding of both to be able to translate. And I can see why there are those who contend that it is not a single language.

Back on topic.
I have never had a problem with any region of UK having its own regional channels. I'd prefer that it is not funded by the tax payer.

cassie

Looks like we may have stumbled across other areas of agreement!

cassie

I very much agree with this point! Contemporaries vehemently criticise Blair about the way in which he involved the UK in the Iraq fiasco, but that pales into relative insignificance when compared with the way the Liberals involved us in the First World War and its consequences!

As with the Official Secrets Act of 1911, it was announced on a late afternoon with the Commons largely deserted. No packed House then to consider the situation!

Not only would we have been spared the huge losses of our compatriots, our country would have been better placed economically. That War would have ended much earlier, and Hitler would not have gained any ascendancy!

Best of all, the sanctimonious Treaty of Rome and all it has led to would not have happened in 1958!


_________________________