Exploration of the Rescue Phenomenon

According to Andrew Buckser, "For several decades after the end of World War II, studies of the Holocaust focused almost exclusively on the processes which led Jews and others to their deaths. . . In the past decade, however, studies of the Holocaust have turned increasingly to the phenomenon of rescue… a more complex and optimistic picture (showing) a human capacity to reason morally, to act independently, and to empathize with others despite danger and prejudice."

Professor Therkel Strĉde has clarified the historic relationship between Denmark and Germany, explaining not only why Danes resented Germans but also ways in which their cultures were close. He points to the fact that "The whole Danish royalty had a German background, including King Christian's wife, Alexandrine."

Countering a common belief that anti-Semitism was not historically present among Danes, historian Sofie L. Bak offers a more realistic, less romantic image of Jews in Denmark, saying, "In spite of better conditions than elsewhere in Europe, hatred against Jews did exist in 19th century Denmark." In 1943 the number of Jews in Denmark was relatively small, only two-tenths of a percent of the population was Jewish and most lived in Copenhagen. Denmark had a high degree of intermarriage in the 1930's - 23 percent. She claims the rescue was not so dangerous as people thought and that helpers/fishermen often exploited the Jews by demanding too much money.

Professor Strĉde and Leo Goldberger, Professor of Psychology, New York University, disagree with her, feeling that the October 1943 rescue "must be seen in a graver light." "Risks were difficult to calculate, but the fact that the Germans had started to execute Danish citizens accounted for realistic fears that they would strike hard against the helpers of Jews, too." These issues of the degree of danger and payment are important to the discussion about the degree of altruism displayed by those participating in the rescue.

Additional scholarship has elucidated more clearly the motivations and debates going on within the Danish, Jewish and German communities. Andrew Buckser calls attention to the influence of a l9th century Danish priest, Nikolai F. S. Grundtvig, and folk high schools as contributing to Danish resistance. (The pervasiveness of these schools was purely Danish. No other country developed this tradition in their educational systems.) His view has sparked an on-going debate over this with Leni Yahil and Therkel Strĉde. Other scholars have called attention to Denmark's spurning of Nazi culture; the lack of strident anti-Semitism in Denmark; and Denmark's immigration policies wherein it refused admittance to most foreign (non-Danish) Jews seeking asylum.

Debate Over Motivations

Some of the most fascinating scholarship offers insights into the behavior of different characters, in particular Germans officials. Scholars have focused on Werner Best, the Nazi plenipotentiary in Denmark, who arrived in the fall of 1942 determined to peacefully control Denmark. He was the Nazi intellectual, who sought to implement his theories in Denmark. He was the one who told Hitler, "The time has come to turn our attention to the solution of the Jewish question" and then seemingly did everything to stop the deportation process.

The celebrated German scholar, Ulrich Herbert portrays the "colorless," cold, intellectual ideologue, Werner Best, as characteristic of a generation that came of age after World War I, especially among officials in the SS. Best wrote in 1941 that, "The liquidation and expulsion of a foreign people does not contradict historical experience and 'the laws of life', when it is done with completeness, totally." Historian Ulrich Herbert comments, "There is no (other) published statement of that time in which the demand for the destruction of an entire people is derived from a systematic philosophical system and legitimized in scholarly language."

According to Professor Leni Yahil, "Dr. Best was the central figure in the singularly dramatic clash between anti-Semitic Nazism and Danish democracy. Here was a man with two faces, all his actions replete with double meanings and contradictions. Double-dealing was one of the ingredients of Nazi rule, engaged in everywhere as much by its leaders and operators as by its victims. Nazis nurtured it deliberately." Ulrich Herbert argues that Best was an "Überzeugungstäter," a perpetrator who commits crimes out of ideology and yet, struggled to be pragmatic in Denmark, despite pressure from Berlin to come down hard on the Danes. Herbert has portrayed debates among the German occupying forces -between Werner Best and the German high command.

Looking at Best, then, raises questions about Georg F. Duckwitz, who has been honored by Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust museum and memorial, for warning the Jews. Scholars debate whether he was the one decent German who sincerely stood up against evil (a Danish Schindler of sorts); or the degree to which he was a Nazi, and whether he may have simply been guided by Werner Best. Professor Hans Kirchhoff, a celebrated Danish historian, observes that Duckwitz had a "talent for diplomacy, for fostering confidence in him." He was a man with "a never failing anti-Nazism, . . . who did what he could to shield the Danes against a tougher policy of occupation."

Other scholars claim Duckwitz was merely following orders from Best. Therkel Strĉde, and Leni Yahil each suggest that the relationship between Best and Duckwitz, who met every day, was more complicated than is generally known. According to Professor Strĉde, Best was playing a double game, that he leaked (via Duckwitz) the information to win on both fronts: "covering his back in Berlin and pleasing the Danes by not arresting too many."