So - my affection for Switzerland is manifest and enduring and my gratitude to the land of my birth is entirely beyond question. Yet, in defending the honor of a country that has been unfairly singled out for so much criticism, I am been struck by a curious omission. Both inside and outside of Switzerland, questions about the Swiss role during the War have centered upon criminal wrongdoing by various banks and upon alleged mistreatment of Jewish refugees in assorted Swiss labor camps. Other questions have focussed upon Swiss collaboration with the Third Reich in a number of unseemly forms, including the transformation of Nazi gold into marketable Swiss francs. All of these questions are completely legitimate. But they are not THE most important questions. These most important questions have to do with the very nature of "neutrality" in contemporary world politics and the integrity of remaining "neutral" in the face of an absolute evil.

Yes, of course, many major Swiss banks did deal happily with the Nazis and did steal the assets of Holocaust victims. Yes, of course, too many Jews were turned back at the frontiers, sometimes into the waiting arms of Nazi officials who then shipped the unfortunate men, women and children directly to death camps in the East. Yes, Switzerland did not represent survival to all Jews - as it did to my parents (my own Catholic uncle and Jewish aunt were turned back into Austria later in 1938) - but it certainly did not behave in a uniquely shameful manner among the nations. And it certainly did behave better than most. Switzerland, it must be noted, offered safe refuge to more Jews than did the United States.

But there is a still nagging question, and one that seems never to be asked: "How could a decent country remain `neutral' when the world was faced with conquest and genocide by an overwhelming evil?" In such circumstances as prevailed during the Second World War, wasn't neutrality itself a form of unpardonable complicity? True, Switzerland's policy of neutrality was longstanding, and neutrality has long been a recognized and permissible status under international law, but weren't the circumstances from 1939 - 1945 altogether unique?

The key questions are not jurisprudential, but ethical. What if Hitler had won the War? What would have been Switzerland's post-War relationship with the Third Reich? A friend of Switzerland hesitates even to ask this question, as the answer is perfectly obvious. Acknowledging the expectations and advantages of Realpolitik, "neutral" Switzerland would have done whatever it needed to do to remain as a viable and prosperous state.

Switzerland has long been known for its very capable army and for its very advanced weapon systems. Had the Swiss nation added its armed forces to those of the Allies, the defeat of Nazi Germany would have come more quickly and decisively. Although it is true that the United States entered the war only after the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941, its soldiers did fight bravely and massively until the German defeat was assured. Switzerland, always maintaining that its armed forces were to be used only in self-defense, never took the position that it had any broader responsibility to the community of nations.

When young Swiss go to the movies today, and view the film SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, how must they feel about Swiss neutrality during the War? Should they not inquire, "Where were our fathers and grandfathers?" "Why did they not play a positive military role in the very preservation of Western Civilization?" "Why are we training today as an army?" "If we didn't do battle in the most titanic struggle against evil in human history, what could possibly justify any armed struggle in the future?"

Last June my wife and I spent several days of vacation in the marvelous lakeside city of Thun. In the evenings, the city was crowded with literally thousands of young Swiss soldiers -pleasant, decorous, well-mannered, enjoying pizza and beer and each others' company. Watching these young men, the beneficiaries of an exceptionally able national armed force, I could not help but wonder: "What are they preparing for?" "In view of their national doctrine of neutrality, would these soldiers ever be engaged in any cause larger than Switzerland's own narrow interests?" The governments of Switzerland, federal and cantonal, have a responsibility to all of the citizens of the country, but they also have responsibilities to the world as a whole. Living within the larger international society, as does every country, Switzerland has an obligation equal to that of all other countries to create a decent and humane world order.

I understand that there may be considerable irony in my raising these very fundamental questions. Had Switzerland not followed the path of neutrality during the War, my Jewish refugee parents might well have not escaped the Holocaust and I might never have been born. Nevertheless, arguments for moral national behavior in world politics cannot be based upon particular judgments of private self-interest, and it is assuredly beyond question that active Swiss participation with the Allies would have been a net positive in saving human lives, military and civilian.

The army of Switzerland must have a purpose beyond merely reacting to specific threats against Switzerland. Representing a country that has long been recognized for its special contribution to human rights, this army should no longer be conceptualized as the agent of a morally "neutral" state. Rather, acknowledging for the first time that neutrality in the face of pure evil is just another word for immorality, the army of Switzerland should now prepare to take its proper place in the global community.

Switzerland exists in the world. It is affected by what happens in other countries. And it can have an effect, a purposeful and positive effect, on what happens in these other countries. What this effect can and should be is an issue that now needs to be addressed by all of the people of Switzerland. For them, this defines the question that emerges from World War II and the Holocaust.

Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971), Professor, Department of Political Science, Purdue University, lectures and publishes widely on Israeli strategic matters. His work is well-known to Israel's military and academic communities. He is also the academic adviser at the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, a Houston-based research facility and political action group.