Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Botnst
Not exactly fence-sitters. they made big bucks off the Nazis. Hey, maybe we could adopt that model where we hide looted art and money for despots and dictators!
|
Well when you are stuck between a rock and a hard place you act in ways that are not always appealing to others, but then again, who cares, you are still acting in your own best interest.
During WWII, the Swiss didn't stay out becuase they were nice to the Nazi's, the Nazi's knew that the Swiss had extensive tunnel and defensive systems in the Alps that would have made it more costly for the Nazi's to have taken Switzerland than all the losses suffered in Russia, wasn't worth the cost to Hitler, so why not bank with them? Many Europen Jews also banked with the Swiss, and their accounts well maintained until after the war. All of the Allied nations also dealt with the Swiss throughout the war. The point being is the Swiss didn't care about what anyone else cared or thought, they did what benefited them the most in their situation, and as such they did welll for themselves...this is no different than many other countries national interest approach.
And the stolen art claim thing is a farse another can of worms, everybody stole and benefitted from the spoils of wars, the Soviets and the US took more of the stolen art (spoils of war) than the Swiss ever held, but I don't see people crying at that, so it's quite selective, everyone steals and has stollen, just ask Dr. Awass trying to recover centuries of stolen Egyptian treasure throughout the world, the looted Mayan, Aztec, Greek, Roman, art.
How do you define spoils of war vs. stealing? How do you segment the two, if what you gain from an act of war is stealing, then all countries have stolen, was Sherman's march through the south a criminal rampage, was the buring of DC in 1812 and the taking of our art an act of war?