There was passage of troops across neutral countries in WW2. In that case should they have LOST that status?

Question

This ties in with a question I still have running...

Some neutrals banked money for countries involved in war, and even allowed them to store their treasures in their banks.

Others allowed troops across their land knowing the purpose was to get to the enemy.

Of course these countries had little defence had they refused.

Also, our troops were a given safe house in these countries, when they were escaping the enemy, and many found their way safely home because of that.

PLEASE REMEMBERI AM NOT JUDGING I am trying to understand how it all fits together.

Hibee,
Sweden allowed passage of the Germans to get to Finland, where they attacked Russia. Neither side was squeaky clean, Russia had wanted some of the borders changed, to take some of Finland s land for their own.

Conranger1
Monaco, Andora portugal. Swizerland.
Turkey, Spain, Litchtenstein, Napal Yemen etc

Thank you for your answer

Answer 1

If Switzerland had lost its neutral status because it allowed Nazi's to bank there, there would have been little to deter the Germans from attacking the country and taking over a fundamental part of the world's banking system. It would have been crazy for either side to oppose Switzerland. Especially the allies, who had many an escapee survive once they had reached that neutral island in the centre of German dominated Europe, as you have indicated. The Allies got an important stepping stone to freedom, the Nazi's got a reliable bank (The Co-operative wasn't available to them after all) and European/World currency maintained a certain amount of integrity.
Your question is really about the literal interpretation of international law. But that only tends to stand up in peace time. During major conflicts quite a few rules tend to get broken, such is war's nature.
The fact that the Swedes and Swiss rarely come in for any real condemnation regarding their actions during WWII is a fair indication of the views of the Allies and neutrals of that time.
And it must also be remembered that The USA and UK were involved in the European conflict (In one way or another) long before their own borders were threatened. People tend to go to war because it seems to be in their best interests. They tend to avoid war because it seems to be in their best interests. The United Kingdom has been involved in about 30 major wars in the last few hundred years. Not a single battlefield in those wars was British. Like the Americans we rarely defend our own territory, because we usually have vested interests abroad, at the perifery of Empire. But the Germans did push us a bit too close for comfort that time around. Nonetheless. We could have simply sat on our hands and allowed the Nazis to dominate Europe. Why didn't we? Why didn't the Americans, on their island more distant than our own? The simple answer is this. The UK was still (just about) the most powerful Empire in the World at the start of WWII. The Germans wanted a bit of that action and saw a real opportunity to outstrip us. The only way of stay at the top was a conflict with Europe's regalvanised number two. We did not fight WWII on principle. We fought it for the prominance of the Empire. And the USA saw their own potential as well. With huge economic resources and two gigantic "English Channels" either side of it (Atlantic and Pacific), it was time for a new type of Imperialism to emerge. Really a case of "Last dog standing" rather than a case of principal or international law.
So my point is that the leaderships of countries nearly always act selfishlessly and thus obedience of international law is effectively irrelevant, because is twisted to suit the most powerful nations. Iraq invaded Kuwait and broke international law and was rightly condemmed around the world. The USA illegally invaded Iraq (This time) and with no evidence or justification WHATSOEVER, was met with hushed murmers of polite disapproval. YET IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME ACT. But racists only ever see black and white, never colours. Blue is not grey.

Answer 2

Cassandra: Perhaps it would be better, for the purpose of your question, to clarify what neutral countries are you refering to. Belgium was neutral, was invaded and occupied by Germany. Sweden was neutral but with interests in both sides, walked the knife edge throughout the conflict. Switzerland was neutral and as such, aided and opposed both Allies and Axis. These are the most prominent European countries involved, but also Portugal and Spain remained neutral and were left neutral by both sides because it was convenient for them to do so. Hitler refrained from invading Spain when Franco refused passage of German troops to attack Gibraltar, maybe because he feared to become embroiled in a guerrilla war against both sides of the Spanish Civil War. Germany and Spain reached a save face compromise resulting in the sending of the volunteer Blue Division to fight alongside the Germans in the Eastern Front (with distinction). Many countries profited from the war, in the Americas for instance. As to the keeping or losing of the "neutral" status, there was no organism that qualified a country as belligerant or neutral. Either you were or you were not and were accepted as such by those involved. The Belgians declared their neutrality, refused passage and were invaded, because Germany saw fit to do it. Spain did the same but was not invaded because Germany didn't believe it was wise to do so. Switzerland responded to a German threat with general mobilisation (the fastest in Europe) and Germany weighed its chances and backed off. Perhaps neutrality is a state of mind, after all.

Answer 3

not sure about the legal position, but morally a neutral country ought to be exactly that, with no support of any kind given to either side in a war. We all know though some of the so-called countries were rather less neutral than others though.

Answer 4

While they were in the neutral country they would not be on combat duties while in that country. Their "status", or "war footing" would commence on return to the theatre of operations. It's worth noting that the "Neutral" countries had varying degrees of sympathy with either side. Spain for example was "neutral", while being ruled by a fascist dictator who had let the Germans bomb his own country.

Answer 5

Apparently Swiss authorities turned a blind eye to the Nazis transporting Jews through Switzerland and Allied
pilots with damaged aircraft who sought refuge there were escorted under police guard to the border and handed over to the Germans. They also allowed the nazis to bank assets stolen from the Jews there. Doesn't sound very neutral to me .

Answer 6

Come on name names so far you mentioned Sweden! and ??

Your question states neutrals which means plural, more than one.

Can you even name the neutral countries of WW2 era???

I will even help you out:

Republic of Ireland.

Answer 7

Which neutral countries allowed troops to pass through? Didn't they all become "occupied" countries?

Answer 8

In my mind, being neutral means you're not taking sides. Letting someone pass through your country doesn't necessarily mean you are in support of their ambitions, especially if you're not impeding the other side of the conflict either.