The word ‘determined’ is part of a morally charged concept that asks us to consider what actions and inactions are complicit ‘enough’ to be held responsible for the Holocaust. However, the word ‘bystanders’ is a complicated term, with a rich and varied composition. It has developed into a central part of the Holocaust consciousness as a perjorative term. The actions and inactions of various actors before and during World War II can almost all be linked in some way to the Holocaust. Yet, it is important to illuminate the complexity of the ‘bystander’, which I will attempt to do through a case study of the neutral country Switzerland during World War II.
Scholarly debate has centred around two central issues in the neutrality of nations; firstly, whether the atrocities of the Holocaust created a situation so unique and unlike previous wars that the legal right to neutrality could not be accepted on moral grounds. Secondly, whether any partisan behaviour occurred in …show more content…
The Hague Conventions of 1907 were concerned with the rights and responsibilities of neutral countries in conflict, but only loosely constrained economic activity. Additionally, there was no refugee convention in international law. This background is vital to an understanding of the policy of ‘bystander’ countries. Switzerland had a number of unique reasons to declare themselves neutral, yet little was done from a humanitarian standpoint Situating Swiss immigration policy is therefore integral in determining to what extent bystanders contributed to the Holocaust, by refusing to give sanctuary to Jewish refugees. The evolution of restrictive immigration policies as information became available about Nazi atrocities, and their response to pressures such as the German Ultimatum on the Repatriation of Jews, must be explored in an analysis of contribution to the
Scholarly debate has centred around two central issues in the neutrality of nations; firstly, whether the atrocities of the Holocaust created a situation so unique and unlike previous wars that the legal right to neutrality could not be accepted on moral grounds. Secondly, whether any partisan behaviour occurred in …show more content…
The Hague Conventions of 1907 were concerned with the rights and responsibilities of neutral countries in conflict, but only loosely constrained economic activity. Additionally, there was no refugee convention in international law. This background is vital to an understanding of the policy of ‘bystander’ countries. Switzerland had a number of unique reasons to declare themselves neutral, yet little was done from a humanitarian standpoint Situating Swiss immigration policy is therefore integral in determining to what extent bystanders contributed to the Holocaust, by refusing to give sanctuary to Jewish refugees. The evolution of restrictive immigration policies as information became available about Nazi atrocities, and their response to pressures such as the German Ultimatum on the Repatriation of Jews, must be explored in an analysis of contribution to the