Just read this very interesting article, great read for those interested in politics and history. It basically states that the two states were extremely similar and often used as a point of refernce until 1940, when Germany bypassed the Maginot line (French defense line) through the Netherlands instead of Switzerland, the latter at the time considered more plausible by France. The article plausibly argues that if Switzerland had been attacked by Germany as well, it would have resulted in a very similar political situation as the Netherlands today;
The futility of Switzerland's armed neutrality and relative isolation would have been abandoned and would have resulted in joining the Nato, EU. That would have resulted in high transfer payments and political troubles for CH as well as the Netherlands. The SVP would very likely almost exactly mirror the Party for Freedom of Geert Wilder. Both countries would be considered political troublemakers within the EU, due to migratory pressures on both countries, while maintaining relatively high standards of living and work ethics, despite the very high population density and immigration. A narrative of alternative destiny very realistically written for once.

http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/kultur....11575815.html

I do not know anything about politics but it is really hard for me to compare the openmindedness of the Dutch with the lack thereof of the Swiss. Yes, this is a generalization but it applies to both sides.

I have several dutch friends and just came from the Netherlands and it must be said in term of attitudes and how we act, the dutch and the swiss are quite similar in many aspects. One example is how both the swiss and dutch have a very down to earth outlook on life.

Dutch are certainly more open than the Swiss, much better looking women, much better at football, much better red light district, but both peoples are marked by the Protestant work ethic

Interesting, but the idea that Geert Wilders' PVV is more extreme than the SVP, considering their retoric, poster campaigns and political power is plainly wrong (and I'm Dutch).

I would not see that as a con, it is actually a pro

did I say it was a con? I don't think so

Re-read what you wrote. Your sentence structure indicates one thing, your subsequent reply something else. Not that any part of your comment was worth reading in the first place.

someone got out of bed on the wrong side this morning

you preceded the comment with a "but" so it makes the reader think you are thinking of it as a con...

Maybe so yes, but the point wasn't which party is more extreme, but that the SVP, rather than campaigning against joining the EU today, would today campaign against the EU's main initiatives and the countries' loss of sovereignty, as both parties are not only against immigration and multi-culturalism but against most EU initiatives and centralisation of power within the EU as well as the marginalisation of smaller countries.

So you sum up a country by religion, women, football and red light districts? Where's the "moron" button.

Having lived in both places I would say both countries are very similar in thought the way people act and their day to day lives.

Got it! (didn't read carefully enough in the first place !

That's your way of interpreting it. Simplified, the sentence is "Group X has these exceptional qualities but both groups share a Protestant work ethic".
Interpreting 'Protestant work ethic' as desireable or undesireable is left to the reader.

Wrong side of bed? Tell me, what side of bed does an Irish teacher like yourself get out of in the morning, when he thinks it's wise (however subtly) to show discontent towards Protestantism in an open, ex-pat forum? Or perhaps it was just a stupid typo of yours... a little blunder perhaps? I doubt this however, considering the topic and your manner of writing. My suggestion to you: keep it to yourself or open a blog and stay there instead.

Culturally speaking, Dutch and Swiss made a fundamental different choice:
- Dutch codified their own language norm,
- Swiss refer to the neighbouring language norm codifications.
That tells us about a different cultural understanding of the own identity. Both countries could pay for their independence, but only the Netherlands understood this independence as cultural secession through language on top of great politics. For the Swiss, cultural independence is ankered in politics of the citizens, citizen identity and rights. Those two countries are different by nature. Far before 1940.

P.S.The only language that couldn't follow this path is Romansh, and they didn't manage to unify and codify it otherwise than valley by valley, making only local groupings. The recent Rumantsch Grischun is not really there yet... it's an attempt, too early to say if it's accepted.

The German generals opted for the way NORTH of the Maginot Line as it offered them the option to tackle France by mechanized troops on a broad front. The route through Switzerland would have meant considerable troubles, most of all due to the topography (the NL armed forces were at a severe DISadvantage in that regard, and even if the Germans had used a "corridor" through Basel-Land, they would have been in French terrain bad for advances with tanks and armoured troop carriers, and also not easy for medium field artillery.

And then the political situation. NL after the war had GB/USA dominated West Germany to the east, Belgium to the South and the U.K. to its north. If you imagine the Vorarlberg having got under Soviet occupation, the situation in CH would have been vastly different. It either would have been a Finland style neutrality or a NATO membership.

You might turn the thing again and imagine that Mussolini had been more successful militarily. He would have conquered Geneva and the Vaud (as agreed with A.H.), which might have affected postwar Switzerland quite heavily.

not only does an irishman bring religious context into this discussion, but another one "brüder" groans at me when i'm against it?
what is it with you idiots and your religion? keep it to yourselves, irishmen, don't bring it here. You're catholics and proud, but don't hate others who aren't interested.

Agree, don't make me laugh, comparing Holland and Switzerland.
We sailed the world, battled the British and Spanish fleets, founded New Amsterdam but then sold it to the Brits who renamed it New York, had colonies in the Caribean, the East Indies, South Africa. And the Swiss ? Pfff, nothing. It's like saying the merchants of New York and Boston are the same as the inbread rednecks in the middle of the USA because they're all Americans.

With all their sailing experience, how many times has NL won America's Cup?

Tom