"Still not endorsing it, but I'll point out that it's not exactly collaboration with a bank robber when I tell him I'll stash his loot and then refuse to give it back to him."
You're joking, right? Legally yes it IS collaboration because you've become an active participant in the process of the crime.
I'm talking morally, not legally: your own version has them operating at cross-purposes. The Swiss were, by your telling,
robbing the Nazis, not helping them.
The Swiss also never refused to give the money back to the Nazis. They KEPT the money for their own purposes and benefit after the Nazis were defeated.
You just said, "They never refused to give the money back. They just never gave the money back." Um... yeah.
The Swiss knowingly and willfully provided financial services to and accepted gold from the Nazis despite their full knowledge of what was occurring in occupied Europe.
Which I oppose,
exactly as I would oppose letting white supremacists patronize one's grocery store or restaurant. This observation doesn't support interventionism, though. It's irrelevant to the question at hand.
Their actions made them complicit in the deaths of millions of Europeans.
Anyone who feeds OJ Simpson is complicit in the slaying of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Everyone should refuse to sell him food, clothing or anything else. I'm not kidding; I sincerely believe that. However, selling food to OJ Simpson is not a prosecutable crime. What you're describing is a summary of many individual actions, some of which probably
are prosecutable crimes, and some of which are not. Blanket statements are a blunt instrument in this case.
--Len.