WI: Netherlands not invaded during WWII?

Part of the "problem" with the Nazi loot was that a fair amount of it was siphoned off in various ways. Goering's art collection is only one example, but agencies within the shambolic structure that was the Nazi government would siphon off chunks for their own special purposes, such as the SS would do. There were sticky fingers both private and governmental all the way to the (central) bank. Another issue was that while the non-monetary loot from German and Austrian Jews confiscated between 1933 and 1939 was available for use, once the war started it was difficult to turn it in to cash. While you could ship a stolen art work from occupied Europe to the USA or South America, this would require a complex route through neutrals using neutral shipping. Furthermore the market for obviously stolen works without a provenance would be limited, and things would be sold at reduced prices.(1) In terms of gold, the problem becomes how to use it. As of 1939 Germany was basically cut off from the international banking system and interbank transfers. This system allowed gold to stay where it was, or be transferred to third party repositories, while the ownership/credits transferred. Some countries might accept "credit transfers" in lieu of actual gold deliveries, but I suspect that more neutral neutrals like Turkey and Portugal would expect physical payment, and even friendly neutrals like Spain would expect gold or hard currency (not Reichsmarks). In the case of Spain, they can use Reichsmarks or swaps to buy German goods, but a lot of their essentials like oil and food come from places that want hard currency or valuta and won't accept Pesatas or Reichsmarks so credit swaps have limited utility.

Being cut off from the international banking system was a big part of Japan's problem, and is a cause of difficulties today for Iran as an example. Before all the electronic commerce, internet, etc, the dependence on the system for transfers and payments was less restrictive, but still vital for major transactions and intergovernmental dealings.

(1) The continuing issue over stolen art works centers around the issue of provenance - the "history" of who owned the art work when and the sales/transfers. Prior to the war, the Nazis worked around this by forcing sales at fractions of value. Later on these sales were justified as legitimate as the new owners would claim the "forced" sale had been because the owner was desperate for cash, not because some black or brown shirted thug held a pistol to his head. Some were taken as "tax payments" since Jews were not allowed to leave Germany (later Austria) with more than a pittance in cash. Of course once the war started, Jewish property was simply taken with no pretenses down to the dental gold in their teeth after gassing. Art works, and things like houses and cars, were then frequently gifted to Nazi party folk or sold via art dealers creating a chain of "legitimate" provenance. After the war, and until this day, the people and institutions in possession of this stuff use the paperwork to show they legitimately acquired it. Often they wave the bill of "forced" sale to show that the chain of acquisition is legitimate. A significant amount of art in museums in Germany and Austria was acquired this way, and these institutions fight tooth and nail to keep it.
 

Deleted member 1487

Part of the "problem" with the Nazi loot was that a fair amount of it was siphoned off in various ways. Goering's art collection is only one example, but agencies within the shambolic structure that was the Nazi government would siphon off chunks for their own special purposes, such as the SS would do. There were sticky fingers both private and governmental all the way to the (central) bank. Another issue was that while the non-monetary loot from German and Austrian Jews confiscated between 1933 and 1939 was available for use, once the war started it was difficult to turn it in to cash. While you could ship a stolen art work from occupied Europe to the USA or South America, this would require a complex route through neutrals using neutral shipping. Furthermore the market for obviously stolen works without a provenance would be limited, and things would be sold at reduced prices.(1) In terms of gold, the problem becomes how to use it. As of 1939 Germany was basically cut off from the international banking system and interbank transfers. This system allowed gold to stay where it was, or be transferred to third party repositories, while the ownership/credits transferred. Some countries might accept "credit transfers" in lieu of actual gold deliveries, but I suspect that more neutral neutrals like Turkey and Portugal would expect physical payment, and even friendly neutrals like Spain would expect gold or hard currency (not Reichsmarks). In the case of Spain, they can use Reichsmarks or swaps to buy German goods, but a lot of their essentials like oil and food come from places that want hard currency or valuta and won't accept Pesatas or Reichsmarks so credit swaps have limited utility.

Being cut off from the international banking system was a big part of Japan's problem, and is a cause of difficulties today for Iran as an example. Before all the electronic commerce, internet, etc, the dependence on the system for transfers and payments was less restrictive, but still vital for major transactions and intergovernmental dealings.

(1) The continuing issue over stolen art works centers around the issue of provenance - the "history" of who owned the art work when and the sales/transfers. Prior to the war, the Nazis worked around this by forcing sales at fractions of value. Later on these sales were justified as legitimate as the new owners would claim the "forced" sale had been because the owner was desperate for cash, not because some black or brown shirted thug held a pistol to his head. Some were taken as "tax payments" since Jews were not allowed to leave Germany (later Austria) with more than a pittance in cash. Of course once the war started, Jewish property was simply taken with no pretenses down to the dental gold in their teeth after gassing. Art works, and things like houses and cars, were then frequently gifted to Nazi party folk or sold via art dealers creating a chain of "legitimate" provenance. After the war, and until this day, the people and institutions in possession of this stuff use the paperwork to show they legitimately acquired it. Often they wave the bill of "forced" sale to show that the chain of acquisition is legitimate. A significant amount of art in museums in Germany and Austria was acquired this way, and these institutions fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Pardon? Germany laundered hundreds of millions of dollars (1940 value) of gold through Switzerland and spent it all over the place. They made a lot of money apparently:
https://www.economist.com/europe/1998/07/02/swiss-banks-and-nazi-gold
teu320.gif


https://thefinanser.com/2014/02/swiss-banks-the-nazis-and-peps.html/
A key aspect during this period is that, until 1936, the Swiss franc was the only remaining major freely convertible currency in the world, and both the Allies and the Germans sold large amounts of gold to the Swiss National Bank.

Between 1940 and 1945, the German Reichsbank sold 1.3 billion francs worth of gold to Swiss Banks in exchange for Swiss francs and other foreign currency, which were used to buy strategically important raw materials like tungsten and oil from neutral countries.

Hundreds of millions of francs worth of this gold was monetary gold plundered from the central banks of occupied countries whilst some (581,000 francs worth) was gold taken from Holocaust victims in Eastern Europe.

The Netherlands is right next door so hardly difficult to trade with for Nazi Germany.

Japan was still trading on the global market with access to international banking until the April 1941 freeze of assets as a result of invading Indochina. Prior they had cash to spend, which is why the US froze it after their embargo wasn't shutting off Japanese trade:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-freezes-japanese-assets
On this day in 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt seizes all Japanese assets in the United States in retaliation for the Japanese occupation of French Indo-China.

On July 24, Tokyo decided to strengthen its position in terms of its invasion of China by moving through Southeast Asia. Given that France had long occupied parts of the region, and Germany, a Japanese ally, now controlled most of France through Petain’s puppet government, France “agreed” to the occupation of its Indo-China colonies. Japan followed up by occupying Cam Ranh naval base, 800 miles from the Philippines, where Americans had troops, and the British base at Singapore.

President Roosevelt swung into action by freezing all Japanese assets in America. Britain and the Dutch East Indies followed suit. The result: Japan lost access to three-fourths of its overseas trade and 88 percent of its imported oil. Japan’s oil reserves were only sufficient to last three years, and only half that time if it went to war and consumed fuel at a more frenzied pace. Japan’s immediate response was to occupy Saigon, again with Vichy France’s acquiescence. If Japan could gain control of Southeast Asia, including Malaya, it could also control the region’s rubber and tin production—a serious blow to the West, which imported such materials from the East. Japan was now faced with a dilemma: back off of its occupation of Southeast Asia and hope the oil embargo would be eased—or seize the oil and further antagonize the West, even into war.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top