To try to desperately haul myself back on board the OP's thread, I have never understood the moral superiority often expressed by those who espoused neutrality in WW2. Here we had the choice of either fighting dictatorships that invaded and brutally repressed their neighbours, and then threatening their neighbours in turn, or of simply sitting on the sidelines and seeing how things turned out. Quite well, it would seem, for most whose neutrality survived the war. Certainly Sweden and Switzerland never looked back, though Portugal and Ireland seemed to have had little to offer the combatants other than intrigue. Perhaps Franco's Spain can be said to have made best use of the opportunities offered, though I wouldn't consider that any of these countries elevated neutrality to a moral high ground, rather they hoped that one side or the other would prevail, but were not betting their shirts. Expedient? Pragmatic? Sure. Morally superior? Hardly.
Dunno why you would see neutrality as being morally superior.........somehow the neutral countries didn't.
Spain had just come through a vicious civil war with in excess of 500,000 people killed,
Portugal has had 30 plus years of instability with coups and dictatorship with mass poverty
Ireland had come through a vicious War of Independence with a country now at war with a country which had never invaded it and following that a Civil war still alive in peoples memories
Countries staying out of WW2 and remaining neutral were more concerned with their survival as nations rather than being part of YET another major war between Europe's great powers.
I use the word YET as the previous couple of centuries were full of wars and skirmishes between the major powers and the little countries always got penalised. Unfortunately in the 20th century man found a way to kill on a greater scale.