Atariman
6 hours ago
As a Swiss, I'm happy they finally try it. It's only around 5% of all government machines, but at least it's a start and I wish them all the best! We have to get independent asap from the US, they never were our (or any other countries) "friends" and most likely never will be. OSS ftw!
unethical_ban
2 hours ago
You had me until "never were".
Considering how shocking and foolish and different Trump's approach to foreign policy is from any past president, it doesn't follow that it's always been this way.
MichaelZuo
an hour ago
From what I heard, the shakedown of the Swiss government over the F35 contract couldn’t have happened without the active support of many actors in the beltway.
So it seems sensible for them to doubt the intentions of many hundreds of decision makers, not just a single person.
mrits
6 hours ago
We certainly weren’t on the same side in WW2
Atariman
6 hours ago
We were neutral, but it's always funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2. That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.
embedding-shape
6 hours ago
WW2 was long enough ago that no one you end up talking about it actually experienced it themselves, but it's recent enough that people who felt their country did "Good", can still ride that high wave without being pulled down by everything that came after.
palata
an hour ago
What? My grandmother experienced it herself, she saw bombings.
embedding-shape
an hour ago
Right, I didn't mean "Everyone who was alive during WW2 is today dead", that's obviously not true, it was just 80 years ago or so.
What I meant was that most people who discuss WW2 with others online, mostly talk from the perspective of not having experienced the war themselves, nor did the person who they speak to, most likely.
palata
26 minutes ago
I think it depends a lot on the country.
If you go to countries that were invaded, people have been in contact with their grandparents. It's not "something that happened far away", it's "stories from family I've known".
Of course in the US it's very different. That's possibly why Elon Musk can do Nazi salutes there and nothing happens. Of course not everybody cares: many people still buy Teslas in Europe. But I think the WW2 memory is not as far as you make it sound.
Cthulhu_
4 hours ago
USAid did "good" for the world, but because people took it for granted and it wasn't in the news until it was stopped (which has cost lives).
bigDinosaur
3 hours ago
The US has been by far the largest funder of medical and other scientific research since WW2 which has benefited billions immensely.
mordae
an hour ago
Sure. Even more so the handful of patent holders in the US.
Want to ignore those patents? Unless you have nukes you're not.
philipallstar
5 hours ago
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world. But yeah, I think it's useless to argue with you.
This is a completely mad assessment. Haven't you noticed the massive issues with scientific, health, and social funding globally now the US taxpayer has stopped bankrolling it?
noja
4 hours ago
Bankrolling is an editorial word that implies almost a one way benefit.
jxntb73
2 hours ago
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us??
0xDEAFBEAD
4 hours ago
Bailey: "Did you know that the US basically never does anything good for the world?"
Motte: "Well when the US does something good for the world the US also benefits."
philipallstar
2 hours ago
Yes, the world should get it for free, but that mean nothing because the US gets something back at all. It's mad. I'm not from the US, but it's obvious why cutting global funding was popular in the US.
tedggh
5 hours ago
Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews.
pjc50
5 hours ago
> closing their borders to fleeing Jews.
This is such a landmine topic, because most countries did this, including the UK and the US; see e.g. the MS St. Louis. This is why there are several "heroes of the resistance" that in modern parlance are "people smugglers", forging credentials and visas in order to help people escape.
Today you see exactly the same hostile attitudes to non-white refugees of basically every war except Ukraine.
the__alchemist
2 hours ago
Niels Bohr, the Great Dane, was one of these skid greasers! He worked with the queen of Sweden, and also used his academic contacts in various countries to secure jobs/visas.
embedding-shape
22 minutes ago
> He worked with the queen of Sweden
Interesting connection, as her father was a foreign member of the Nazi party (while living in Brazil) and had lied about his Nazi affiliation in the past. When he moved back to Germany, he joined the main party.
nephihaha
5 hours ago
Despite what Hollywood says, WW2 was more to do with German militarism and expansionism than the Jewish question. The Allies were certainly willing to use pro-Jewish sentiments and some Jewish troops, but it was never presented as the main issue.
fluidcruft
4 minutes ago
I don't know where Hollowood ever said it WW2 was about Jews.
IDK if things have changed but generally the whole narrative in the US is presented as unwitting yankies discovering the horrors of the death camps. It's debated how much some levels of the government knew, but it certainly wasn't public knowledge in the US.
Well, that or fighting the Japanese.
Gud
3 hours ago
Not sure why this is down voted.
“Go save the Jews” was hardly a motivating factor for any nation in the war.
pjc50
3 hours ago
Downvoted but basically correct.
Difficult to pin something as all consuming as WW2 on "about" anything, but we can look at who fired the first shots, which was clearly the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in the east and the German invasion of Poland in the West (followed shortly after by the USSR invading Poland and later Finland from the other direction.)
It is not at all a given that, had Germany stayed within her international borders, that the Holocaust would have on its own triggered WW2. After all, mass murder in the Congo Free State didn't trigger invasion of Belgium.
philipallstar
5 hours ago
I think Hollywood says exactly that. Most WW2 films are about war, not the Holocaust.
0xDEAFBEAD
3 hours ago
>Today you see exactly the same hostile attitudes to non-white refugees of basically every war except Ukraine.
Perhaps that's because most of those refugees could more easily shelter in neighboring countries that they are more culturally similar to... if shelter was actually the primary thing that they were seeking.
LtWorf
3 hours ago
It's also why Germany did the death camps. Originally their plan was just to force them to leave but most countries were not allowing them to do so.
rrr_oh_man
3 hours ago
> Originally their plan was just to force them to leave
That is 1930s pre-war Germany and Austria; and around 550k people by the most generous calculation. Yes, the world wronged them. But you cannot say death camps happened because the US didn’t hand out enough visas.
After 1939, when Germany invaded Poland (home of 3-3.5m Jews) and in 1941 the USSR (home of another 1-2m Jews) no one was being forced to leave (or live) anymore. People were being killed with bullets to the head or back, and when this started to be unbecoming/too inefficient, the German state devised an industrial approach to the killing of humans.
palata
an hour ago
There is a definition of neutrality [1][2] based on the Hague convention.
embedding-shape
5 hours ago
Would this mean that if Country A for example starts closing their border for fleeing citizens of Country B, Country A would no longer be considered neutral in the Country-B <> Country-C war? I'm interested in how much you have to do/not have to do, in order for no longer be considered neutral.
I think, once you read about each individual country and what they did before/during/after WW2, it seems like not a single country on the European continent can be considered "neutral". So maybe with this lens, Switzerland was "the most neutral" if you compare with others?
palata
an hour ago
"Neutrality" for a country (as per the Hague convention) basically means that you cannot help a belligerent and you have to treat the belligerents equally.
So I assume that if you open your borders to all fleeing citizens, that's neutral, and if you close it to all, that's neutral as well.
watwut
5 hours ago
There is a difference between someone running from persecution and someone leaving because they might be conscripted into invasion they agree with or because they dont like the economy. Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here. You could sorta a little equate Ukrainians, a little.
And yes, actual historical events and motivations of past actors matter.
Yes, there were multiple fully on-the-nazi side countries, Swiss were not them. That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.
embedding-shape
5 hours ago
> That does not make the comparison you made meaningful.
Yeah, even when I tried my best to, apparently the labels just fire up too much emotions. I've removed the country names completely as it's irrelevant to what I was trying to discuss.
> Equating Russians with Jews is particularly ugly here
I didn't do anything of the like in the original text, but good try!
kakacik
an hour ago
Ah another week another instance of this maga level crap. Read up on [1], read up on Geneva accepting migrants way after it was clear that Switzerland will starve since it was 100% surrounded by axis. Even after federal government forbade that.
Private Swiss banks accepted money from both nazis and jews alike, thats true. Sounds neutral to me. They have anonymous numbered accounts here, practice for local citizens used long before WWII. Together the reasons why it ended up as it did.
nephihaha
5 hours ago
"Switzerland was “neutral” not neutral. The Swiss certainly crossed into the complicit side quite often, profiting from the Nazi regime, laundering their looted gold and closing their borders to fleeing Jews."
That still counts as neutral, as does Sweden's activities. Switzerland interned allied airmen and was even bombed but stayed out of the war.
There is a wonderful quote from the Irish parliament. The Irish government wanted to be neutral, but one of the politicians asked "but who shall we be neutral against ?" (By the way, the nature of the Irish Free State's "neutrality" remains controversial to this day, and again, I could point to examples both ways.) It is hard to think of any fully neutral countries in WW2, partly due to the large empires spanning Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Maybe certain Latin American countries, except some of them joined the war at the end and/or took in Nazi refugees like Eichmann.
Spooky23
an hour ago
They walked a fine line.
You can find complicity in the holocaust everywhere. The United States strictly enforced immigration quotas and turned away entire refugee ships. Legislation to address the issue and provide an exception failed in the house in 1939. Those people were returned to their deaths.
After the war, the genuine shock of what was discovered by the Army was presented to imply that nobody had any idea what was happening.
The Swiss also turned a blind eye to allied activity. The OSS and MI6 operated pretty blatantly and received some assistance from the Swiss authorities.
The Swiss cannot claim moral superiority by any means, but it’s unfair to brand them as nazi collaborators. These issues are black and white a hundred years later and thousands of miles away, not so much when you’re surrounded.
blitzar
5 hours ago
> funny how many US-guys always bring up WW2
Cut them some slack - its the last time they "won" a war.
0xDEAFBEAD
3 hours ago
When the US wins, it tends to be quick, clean, and easily forgotten. Consider our victories against ISIS, or against Saddam in the Gulf War. Both cases where an expansionist power violated territorial integrity norms by engaging in conquest, and was defeated by a US-led coalition.
disgruntledphd2
2 hours ago
> against Saddam in the Gulf War
I really hope you're referring to GW1, rather than 2. And yeah, if you weren't a Kurd who believed GW Bush, then that was a pretty effective war from the US (and global) perspective.
0xDEAFBEAD
2 hours ago
We won in Iraq 2 as well, and considering the fight against conventional Iraqi forces, they were quickly defeated.
disgruntledphd2
an hour ago
> We won in Iraq 2 as well,
Only if you ignore the rise of ISIS and various militias, along with the collapse of Iraqi society (mind you, the sanctions had done a pretty good job of wrecking that before GW2 anyway).
petesergeant
4 hours ago
> That was maybe the last time, the US did anything "good" for the world.
As a non-Swiss, non-American, I can assure you you need to study both American and Swiss modern history. The Swiss were far, far too cozy with the Nazis, and the Americans have done a spectacular amount of good since WWII ended.
palata
an hour ago
Genuinely interested:
- Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"? Half of France was occupied for most of the war, after all. And enough people were collaborating.
- Would you say that the UK was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They considered not fighting against them in the beginning.
- Would you say that the US was far, far too cozy with the Nazis? They didn't do anything for years, until Pearl Harbour, right?
I think it's always more complicated than just blaming an entire country.
I am not an expert in modern history, but my understanding is that Switzerland was entirely surrounded. I guess they did their best to avoid getting occupied? Certainly some assholes in Switzerland profited from the war, but that's true in many (most? all?) other countries.
petesergeant
28 minutes ago
> Would you say that "France was far, far too cozy with the Nazis"?
Vichy France? Yes, of course. It's taught to French school children as a deeply disgraceful chapter of French history, despite it being under significant pressure. The North was under military occupation, having put up a fight. Collaborationist politicians were put to death after the war.
> the [UK/US] was far, far too cozy with the Nazis?
ok bro.
palata
23 minutes ago
Well, "bro", I was trying to see what you consider "far, far too cozy".
So apparently you consider that Switzerland was obviously just like Vichy France? At least obviously-enough to "ok bro" me?
bell-cot
an hour ago
Who's "We" here? The US pursued its own interests from a (seemingly) nice, safe distance until it was attacked. The Swiss had no such luxury of distance, and also pursued their own interests so long as they were not attacked.
smitty1e
4 hours ago
The argument is much cleaner if immutable past actions remain un-weaponized.
If somebody wants to tap me for reparations over chattel slavery in the US, and all I can say is that my in-country ancestors fought for the Union.
Which, along with $5, will get you a cup of coffee down' the beanery.
noname120
3 hours ago
I’m disappointed they did. M365 represents a tiny proportion of the budget especially in light of the high Swiss salaries in government (~ $100-250k per employee per year) and all the surrounding infrastructure costs. Microsoft software became really good over time and the loss of productivity and the inefficiencies introduced by the change to clunky software will absolutely not be worth it.
functionmouse
3 hours ago
Sorry, none of what you just said makes any practical sense.
noname120
13 minutes ago
Could you elaborate?
glimshe
5 hours ago
Linux is largely financed by American corporations. Without that, Linux wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today.
embedding-shape
5 hours ago
How far you wanna go back to figure out what Linux would/wouldn't be without specific companies and individuals? You're taking "stealing credit for something" to a whole new level.
sebmellen
4 hours ago
Linux is 100% created by an ethnically Swedish guy in Finland. Your point is?
maccard
4 hours ago
I’m a European who has contributed to the kernel (a single, pathetic patch but a patch nonetheless). That means at the very least it’s not 100% created by Linus
sebmellen
18 minutes ago
I should have been more specific about what “created” meant, but my point was just to emphasize how ridiculous it is to ascribe national provenance to a massive open source project like Linux.
ButlerianJihad
4 hours ago
fnord
embedding-shape
3 hours ago
Ouch, so many wrong statements with your comment, where to begin. For starters, you seem to imply that Linux is done created, but Linus is still actively creating more of Linux, so check mate, mate.
ButlerianJihad
3 hours ago
You sunk my battleship!
embedding-shape
3 hours ago
> as American citizens
As a Finish/American citizen. Not sure why people should trust the rest of what you write when you cannot even get the basics correctly.
Edit: Aww, you were so wrong you had to edit the complete comment to say something else? Boo! Come on, stand up for being wrong when it happens.
eternauta3k
4 hours ago
And without American AI to patch security holes, Linux and the software running on it will become hopelessly insecure.
ezst
3 hours ago
Yeah, because the only thing that's for certain is that American LLMs are so special that they cannot be reproduced, as everyone has been knowing already in 2023 from the public "we have a gigantic moat" Google memo.
khalic
3 hours ago
lol somebody didn’t hear the news about Kimi and GLN 5.3 cyber
Rochus
5 hours ago
Wouldn't a true Swiss person be neutral and cautious, and wouldn't they refrain from parroting all sorts of nonsense in public about other countries? Anyway, it doesn’t exactly seem like smart move when a government agency tasked with protecting its citizens’ sensitive information switches on a large scale from local, closed networks with energy-efficient desktop applications to externally hosted SaaS infrastructure, with wasteful, fragile, unsecure browser-based applications, sending each byte over many borders. This development should never have happened in the first place.
khalic
3 hours ago
That’s a lot of misconceptions for one paragraph…
palata
44 minutes ago
I believe they are saying two things:
- They feel like the Swiss person above shouldn't say stuff like "the US were never friends". And... you know... they are entitled to their feelings, I guess?
- Switzerland should not have become dependent on BigTech (or any kind of external tech). Which goes in the direction of digital sovereignty.
Rochus
21 minutes ago
To the point, thanks.
Rochus
3 hours ago
What misconception? The administration wrote themselves few years ago: https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/de/07032023-bundesverwaltung-fueh... Now (eventually) they seem to reconsider that this dependability might not have been a good idea. I worked for the Swiss administration myself as an external consultant for many years and have I pretty good insight.