61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

The third issue area is wider in scope. It concerns the justifications arising from
the situation in which Switzerland found itself in the years 1933–1945. What
type of pressure was exerted by the Nazi regime? What were the challenges that
Switzerland faced and how did it deal with them? How are the deterrence
measures used in Swiss refugee policy linked with the permeability of the
borders in economic matters? Any analysis that asks these questions must incorporate
the will to resist and readiness to adapt in equal measure, where terms
such as accommodation and cooperation become important as they cut through
a rigid comparison of the opposite attitudes of «good» and «evil» and reflect
the contradictory nature of the situation. The question should be asked from the
dual perspective of how Switzerland managed to combine cooperation with the
power from which the threat emanated with a national defence policy that was
directed against this threat. 17 Under these conditions, how was the state’s policy
of neutrality interpreted and instrumentalised?
What role was played by the fact that Switzerland was useful to the Third Reich
in terms of finance and industry? Is it actually possible to make this kind of
cost/benefit analysis, all the more so when set against the complex background
of the invading enemy being threatened by the high «admission price» and high
«accommodation expenses» caused by the country’s being militarily defended?
How did «dissuasive perception» and «dissuasive communication» 18 work,
based as they were on the realisation that the «dissuasion effect» produced by
usefulness and resistance did not result from Swiss intentions, but from their
perception by the potential aggressor? Thereto has to be added the question as
to what effect this complex amalgam of adaptation and resistance had on the
attitude of individuals, the memory-culture of different social groups, and the
nation’s collective memory. 19
A fundamental problem that runs through all three issue areas concerns the
standards to be used in evaluating historical events. The debate about the way
Switzerland handled its Second World War past opposed two rival schools of
thought. Since the inception of the modern state-building process and since the
rise of the nation as a collective with a powerful common consciousness, the
assumption that the end – preservation of national security and self-assertion –
justifies the means has been part of the rigid repertoire of conduct in terms of
the national interest (Staatsräson). In the case of the modern nation state the
primary concerns are the assertion of sovereignty, the preservation of
independence, the securing of power, and not infrequently the increase of power.
By contrast, in this bipolar model of reasoning, the adherence of the nation state
to universal values and human rights is exiled to the area of national morality
(Staatsmoral). Whereas in normal times there is a common obligation for all
countries to place their relations on a civil and legal footing, when they are faced
29