Clash of Democracy and Totalitarianism
Clash of Democracy and Totalitarianism

Protagonists on both sides of the occupation came to realize the impossibility of combining democracy and totalitarianism. Werner Best, German plenipotentiary in Denmark, hoped to manage Denmark as a model protectorate, allowing the biologically "superior" Aryan Danes to have some modicum of freedom and to hold elections. But Danes defiantly voted against the Nazi party in the March 1943 elections and launched a series of strikes and acts of sabotage.

Leni Yahil, Professor emerita of Modern Jewish History, Haifa University, Israel stated, "The elections gave the population a feeling of internal cohesion and made it conscious of the fact that it was by no means powerless toward the enemy." Best was humiliated before the Berlin high command and forced to implement martial law on August 29th.

On the other side, Danish citizens, for over three years (1940-1943) tried to "cooperate" with German authorities, but came to realize that they had to take a stand or their own freedom would be compromised. So, on August 29, when Germans insisted upon capital punishment for saboteurs, the Danish government defiantly stopped functioning, refusing even to resign. Germans could not take over without violating the Danish constitution.

Women expressed alliance with England by knitting small hats in the red, white and blue colors of the British Royal Air force which Danes defiantly wore in front of Germans.

Hymns were revived at big "alsang" gatherings that recalled the Viking past and earlier confrontations with Germany. This united the Danes in their opposition to the foreign presence. But how effective was this approach? And why did it take the forms that it did? Dr. Jørgen Kieler, prominent member of the Danish resistance claims, "It soon became clear that the Danish people were divided, this time between a large majority preferring passive resistance and a small but growing group of men and women who wanted... an active fight against the Germans." The goal was the same for both groups - national independence and democracy - but the means were different.

Bruce H. Kirmmse, Professor of History, Connecticut College, sees that spontaneous help was offered during the rescue "not only because it would be treason against the Jews, but because it would be treason against the notions of self-respect, of national independence, democracy and the rule of law." Elsebet Jegstrup, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Augusta State University, claims the rescue was "not a humanitarian action" but rather a protest of "the Nazi abuse of Danish political and social principles of freedom and equality."

Andrew Buckser, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Purdue University, explains, "the past appears as something essentially internal to a group, something produced by a set of people to support its own needs and advance its own interests. When traditions interact, it is generally in situations of opposition, in which each group promotes its own image of the past and seeks to discredit alternatives."

Tolerance of Political, Ethnic and Religious Differences

Despite all, Denmark represents a mixed picture of how it handled issues of tolerance. While protective of its Jewish population who had for generations lived as full-fledged members of the society, the country's immigration laws were very restrictive in the 1930's: very few of those Jews seeking asylum were allowed to stay. And when the Germans demanded that the Danish communists be arrested in 1941, there was very little protest. Three hundred were sent to an internment camp in Denmark and later shipped to camps in Germany.

Though Denmark was not free of anti-Semitism, Jews were regarded, both by themselves and others, as Danes first. In contrast, Poland, which presented formidable obstacles to Jewish rescue, had the highest concentration of Jews in Europe (ten percent), low assimilation, and a robust history of anti-Semitism. In Holland and Norway, whose situations were comparable to Denmark, both countries experienced high casualty rates attributed by many to more widespread anti-Semitism and strong local Nazi movements.

Forms of Altruism and Moral Courage

One of the central debates focuses on key motivators - was it character or opportunity (or maybe some of both) for individuals taking part in the rescue? Can the rescue be largely explained through a propitious combination of external circumstances or as "heroic" deeds depending upon individual moral courage? In other words to what degree was the rescue an example of altruistic behavior, generally defined as "the unselfish concern for the welfare of others?"

Professor Leni Yahil claims that, "what happened in Denmark did not have much to do with altruism, but was a combination of culture and politics." Leo Goldberger, Professor of Psychology, New York University, argues that altruism was involved, "they (the Danes) could not possibly have behaved in any other way (and lived with their consciences)".

What interests Andrew Buckser is that the rescue "can show how complex some of these ethical issues are, and how complex the decisions of people are when they make them. Our examples of Holocaust resistance, and moral choices generally, have been framed in largely heroic terms -- ethically outstanding individuals, faced with a moral outrage, respond in compelling ways. For most of us, though, the choices we make are both less heroic and more ambiguous."


Role of Institutions and Societal Cooperation

A series of institutions in Denmark played a very visible role in protesting and promoting ethical action. The German attempts to round up the Jews produced widespread public reactions from the King, the parliamentary leaders, universities, trade unions, and Lutheran churches.

The Lutheran Church played a role from the beginning. On the night of the round-ups, knowing how precious the Torah scrolls were to the Jewish community, several priests broke into the synagogue and took the Torahs from the ark, taking them out and hiding them in Trinitatis Church down the street. Hans Fuglsang-Damgaard, the Bishop of Copenhagen, along with other Danish Lutheran bishops sent a letter to German occu-pation officials. On October 3, the letter was read in most Danish Lutheran churches. It proclaimed, "Our different religious views notwithstanding, we shall fight for the cause that our Jewish brothers and sisters may preserve the same freedom which we ourselves value more than life itself." Lawrence Baron, Professor of Modern Jewish History, San Diego State University, claims "Fuglsang-Damgaard's statement was probably the most inclusive defense of Jews pronounced by a church during World War II."

The King and parliamentary leaders also spoke out. King Christian formally protested to German authorities about the raid, echoing his concerns expressed almost two years earlier in December 1941 when, after an arson attack on the Copenhagen synagogue, he sent a letter of sympathy to Rabbi Marcus Melchior.

Parliamentary leaders and government officials like Svenningsen worked hard for those Jews sent to concentration camps-organizing food packages, correspondence, and in the end buses that rescued prisoners before the war was over. Copenhagen officials arranged to support relatives and property left behind. The city assumed responsibility for the affairs of some 2,000 Jewish families, paying bills, mortgages and rents, renegotiating contract obligations and storing furniture and valuables.

The Danish ambassador to the U.S., Henrik Kauffmann, contributed funds from the Danish Legation in Washington and funds raised by Jewish organizations in the U.S.
Additionally, the Swedish government loaned money for the refugee effort - these loans were forgiven at the end of the war. These funds helped cover the costs for forty-five refugee camps established in Sweden.