“Neutral” is not neutral when it comes to war between democracy and fascism. The proximal cause of the defeat of France and Britain by the Nazis in the Battle of France of May-June 1940 was the declaration of the neutrality of Belgium a few years prior.
This Belgian “neutrality” stabbed France in the back (all the more as Belgium was a part of Gaul and later originated the Franks!). In October 1936, King Leopold III announced that Belgium would remain neutral in the event of another war in Europe (after the Nazis invaded Spain and the Rhineland…)
Belgian sudden “neutrality” was encouraged by the perverse US Deep State, which viewed France to be more of a problem for its expansion plans, than Hitler. Belgian instant “neutrality” resulted in the non-construction in 1937 of the northern segment of the Maginot Line (which would have certainly stopped German armor).
Two-third of the Nazi army slipped through that forested, unbuilt segment of the Maginot Line. Undetected by the Belgian army most of the Nazi armor struck from behind, cutting off the best elements of the French army and the entire British army. So Nazism, instead of being defeated in 1940, earned itself a reprieve in its ambitious task of killing 5% of humanity, or so.
Pseudo-neutrality by other powers, including the USA, kept the Third Reich well fed in its early years. “Neutral” Switzerland even kept on providing the Nazis with ball-bearings after the factories had been destroyed in Germany (finally apprised of that Swiss game, the US Air Force remedied it by “accidentally” bombing Switzerland…).
In the First World War, the fascist racist imperialistic invaders were able to pursue their criminal enterprise, thanks to the “neutrality” of several northern European countries ferrying crucial goods from the “neutral” USA. The German Chancellor admitted that, should the “neutrals” not have helped the “Kaiserreich” break through the Franco-British blockade, the “Kaiserreich” would have had to surrender in 18 months So the war, instead of lasting only 18 months, lasted more than four years. When the blockade got effective, the French ammunition production was more than ten times that of the German invaders, and their all-out attack on Paris in July 1918 perished under a deluge of French fire.
***
As Putin attacked Ukraine, several small European countries have been tempted to break European solidarity and ingratiate themselves with the thermonuclear tyrant in the Kremlin. It failed until January 2025 (as in the end all 27 EU countries voted for sanctions against Russia; I was personally witness to bragging about breaking sanctions in another, non-EU so-called “neutral”, see below…)
The case of Austria:
Does the “neutrality” pseudo-religion also force Austrians to get more than 90% of their gas from the Kremlin? Or is it good old Austrian obliviousness to morality?
The neutrality comedy was a political decision to please the USSR in 1955. That criminal state was dissolved by its constituent republics more than 30 years ago. Now the neutrality comedy is just parasitism writ large. A highest level Swiss Confederal commission found the same about Switzerland in 2024, calling Switzerland a “parasite” relative to NATO. I am not making this up. Here is Wikipedia about Austrian “neutrality” (considering how much Austria in enriching the Kremlin’s criminal enterprise, Austria is not “neutral”, IMHO):
The Declaration of Neutrality (German: Neutralitätserklärung) was a declaration by the Austrian Parliament declaring the country permanently neutral. It was enacted on 26 October 1955 as a constitutional act of parliament, i.e., as part of the Constitution of Austria.[1]
Pursuant to resolution of the Federal Assembly of Parliament following the Austrian State Treaty, Austria declared “its permanent neutrality of its own accord”.[2] The second section of this law stated: “In all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory.”[3]
History
Formally, the declaration was promulgated voluntarily by the Republic of Austria. Politically, it was the direct consequence of the allied occupation by the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France between 1945 and 1955, from which the country was freed by the Austrian State Treaty of 15 May the same year. The Soviet Union would not have agreed to the State Treaty if Austria had not committed to declaring neutrality after the allied forces had left the country.
The USSR does not exist anymore, it has no political power. Austria is free of that political pressure. It should join NATO and spend 3% of its GDP on defense. To understand why one has to understand why tiny Austria can be a democracy: because major powers, which are major democracies, are armed to the teeth… and protect Austria.
***
There may be around 60 democracies (50 of them supporting Ukraine). The other regimes, around 140 of them, are so dictatorial that they will be tempted to stabilize themselves by accusing foreigners. Thus these dictatorships, being in natural conflict with the democratic principle, naturally come into conflict with democracies.
I had nice conversations with (superficially) nice people made very wealthy by evading Western sanctions and enabling the Kremlin to generate income (and buy outlawed weapons such as computer chips). Guess what? They are living and working in “parasite” Switzerland. Switzerland is a web of pro-Putin activities, where contractors contract with enough intermediary contractors to even sell fertilizers from the Kremlin to the USA! (Then they chuckle and accuse “the Americans” of “hypocrisy”…). Switzerland spends much less than 1% of GDP on defense. Who defends Switzerland? Well, in WW1 and WW2, the French Republic, de facto, defended Switzerland, and took the brunt of the punishment from the fascists, and now NATO defends Switzerland.
A related problem is why are there so many countries which are not democracies? Plutocracy, the rule of an evil wealthy elite over We The People, is the most economical way for an elite to organize a nation servicing it. After all, the reason for a state is administering an army. Why pay for more?
Hence the great occurrence of plutocracies… Also Western plutocrats love to do business with… plutocracies (rather than democracies!) “Neutral” countries made the difference between an easy victory and a very hard one, in both WW1 and WW2. Now we can see Putin slowly winning because he is fed by a worldwide network of fellow plutocrats who enable Putin to keep on fighting by providing him with weapons and the means to buy them. And no, it’s no less dangerous than before, quite the opposite as Putin, more than 100, threatened to use nukes. And not just in Ukraine.
Patrice Ayme
Recapitulation:
The idea that a democracy should never be neutral stems from several key points:
- Value Commitment: Democracies are built on values such as freedom, equality, and justice. Neutrality when those values are violated implies indifference to these values, allowing for the perpetuation of injustice or oppression. A true democracy should actively promote and defend democratic principles instead of practicing criminal hypocrisy (Switzerland making money from Nazis and Jews alike and now repeating the performance with Ukraine and Russia, is a case in point).
- Responsibility to Protect: Democracies have a moral obligation to protect human rights, both domestically and globally. Neutrality can lead to complicity in the actions of dictatorial regimes, undermining efforts to promote democracy and human rights worldwide.
- Economic and Military Dependencies: The “neutral” democracies found in Europe relied on stronger democracies for defense and economic support. This creates a dynamic where the “neutral” state benefits from the sacrifices and expenditures of more committed democracies, leading to resentment and a sense of exploitation…. On both sides. This is why Finland and Sweden stopped pretending to be “neutral”, and embraced NATO (which is a democratic alliance).
- And not only that: “Neutral” Denmark fought six hours in WW2. By contrast, Norway fought for years. France, the UK and the USA fought Nazism for years and all together suffered well above two million dead; France and the UK lost 2.3 million soldiers killed in WW1; New Zealand suffered 1.6% of its population killed in battle…)
- Cost of Democracy: Building and maintaining a democratic system requires resources, education, and civic engagement. In contrast, dictatorships operate with less investment in public welfare and participation, making them “cheaper” in the short term. However, the long-term costs of oppression, instability, and conflict can outweigh these initial savings.
- Historical Precedents: History has shown that neutrality leads to a decline in democratic norms and the rise of authoritarianism. Democracies that remain passive in the face of threats may find their own values and systems eroded over time.
In summary, a democracy that adopts a stance of neutrality will undermine its core values, foster dependence, and ultimately jeopardize both its own health and the health of the global democratic community. And remember: morality comes from “Mores”… As does “Ethics” (Cicero translated the latter into the former…)… The mores are the old ways, those which ensured survival…
Patrice Ayme's Thoughts 