For Rasmus, Part II

[Die Fledermaus]

Continuing from the locked thread. . .


>> Interesting information. Thanks. Pretty impressive level of protection for New York. Was that standard all along the coast or was it a special case? <<

NY was the biggest city, most important port, and site of the major Brooklyn Navy Yard. So surely we here saw the highest level of coastal protection.

>> Gotta love old-fashioned uniforms. Thank God for the military's love of tradition and continuity. <<

Yep!

>>Quick! What happened to the Prinz Eugen? Hint: same thing as happened to Yamamoto's first flagship (which was not the Yamato).<<

>> A severe case of radiation-poisoning, if I recall No more lucky ship then. <<

The Nagato also sank at Bikini atoll in similar A-Bomb tests.

>> We've had some of that in Denmark as well - the most absurd being a tiny island in a lake inside the capital of Copenhagen. ;D <<

That is funny.

>>The movie "Caligula" was pretty sick.<<

>> I never saw it. For a reason. I've heard more than enough. The strange thing was, that they got a lot of prominent actors to be in it. I've heard they weren't told what the movie was going to be like in the end. <<

Malcolm McDowell never read the script first??

>> Love Shogun. But it is only recently that I found out, that it was based on a true story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adams_(sailor)). Mifune's Toronaga is a stand-in for the real life Tokugawa. <<

I think I recall that story about it. I wish "Shogun's" ending was a little tighter. We have in a nearby large cemetery (green-wood.org)
the lovely grave of Townsend Harris with many Japanese motiffs, and a lovely cherry blossom, and dogwood, tree.

>> Yes. Another classic. I also love his line, when he talks about himself pleading to the gods as he prepares to step on to the world stage: "Let it be wonderful. Or let it be awful. As long as it is not common!" Also one to make you think. <<

Yep. I loved the way Ustinov said "They're singing". .

>>But I assume Caligula was insane.<<

>>I meant they were on the tactical offensive needlessly and foolishly.<<

>> Ah, I see. That was Longstreet's point throughout Gettysburg, wasn't it? <<

Right.

>>Well, "impoverished"? He should check out Haiti for real poverty!<<

>> In 1814 Denmark wasn't that far from Haiti. We'd just experienced a state-bankruptcy. <<

I just had an image of Danes dancing in a circle covered with sacrificed animals' blood in a voodoo ceremony!

>> but we won at the negotiation-table, getting of lightly by just leaving the League of Armed Neutrality. <<



>> So Denmark carried on its neutral policy for some years, but when Napoleon and Czar Alexander signed the treaty of Tilsit in 1807, Britain started to worry about having all of Europe aligned against her. They feared that Napoleon would force Denmark into the alliance and thus gain control of the powerful Danish navy <<

How big was it then?

>> the British resorted to a terror-bombardment of Copenhagen with guns and rockets - deliberately targeting the civilian population
<<

I put nothing past the British. they starved the Irish and foced opium on the Chinese. Could the French have sent help, or was it too far?

>> it was decided that Denmark should hand over Norway to Sweden, reducing us to a puny nation. So this was not a war of Denmark's choosing, but one the government felt they had to fight to the bitter end. A little spinelessness ala 1940 in 1807 might have saved Norway for Denmark. <<

Would not the Norwegians and Swedes have demanded independence anyway at some point?

>> So the Danish acceptance of German terms in 1940 saved the Jews, which all should agree was a good thing. I don't see it as my job to decide whether it would have been better to sacrifice the Jews in order to throw a spanner in the works for the Wehrmacht in 1940. I should just present the pros and the cons of the two options (to resist and to yield) to help people understand the dilemma the Danish government faced. I truly don't think there was a 'right' decision, just a decision as to which was the lesser evil - one that is easy to double-guess after the fact. <<

Well thought out. But did the Danes think about the fate of the Jews in 1940? I doubt it.

>> I think a lot of people had read it. But I doubt many people really believed that he wanted to go through with it - it just seemed to preposterous. <<

He proved them wrong. I suppose you have seen "Triumph of the Will". The German Army was angry about that movie as they were so neglected by her.


>> Well, that's all for now.

Take care <<


You too!

Tom

[Rasmus]

Hi again Tom

I loved your photos. Ships really are some of the most impressive things mankind has ever made.

>>NY was the biggest city, most important port, and site of the major Brooklyn Navy Yard. So surely we here saw the highest level of coastal protection.<<

Wasn't the shipyards in Newport News more important to the navy? As I recall, most of the big carriers in WWII were build there.

>>Malcolm McDowell never read the script first??<<

Not so much him, but I've heard that John Gielgud, the classic Shakespearean actor, didn't know what kind of movie it was going to be. I don't know if it's true or not.

>>Yep. I loved the way Ustinov said "They're singing". .<<

Or: "The same old faces. All green." ;D

>>I just had an image of Danes dancing in a circle covered with sacrificed animals' blood in a voodoo ceremony!<<

We call that 'Saturday night, downtown.'

>>How big was it then?<<

These are the ships that the British took in 1807 www.navalhistory.dk/English/Naval_Lists/Periods/1807.htm. 14 Ships-of-the-Line and about as many frigates. There were ships not in Copenhagen at the time, which escaped capture. Amongst them the Ship-of-the-Line Prins Christian Frederik. That was destroyed in battle against a British squadron in 1808 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zealand_Point.

At this point the navy really was too big for Denmark. The country didn't have the money, resources or manpower to keep them mobilised. One of the reasons for the British success in 1801 and in 1807 was that the Danish ships were in the harbour at Copenhagen - demobilised and without rigging.

>>I put nothing past the British. they starved the Irish and foced opium on the Chinese. Could the French have sent help, or was it too far?<<

Since the battle took place on and around Zealand, a French intervention would have required a naval intervention - and after Trafalgar, that wasn't possible. I don't think the British would have risked sending their navy into the cul de sac of the Kattegat if there was a risk they would be caught between Danish and French ships with no way to get out. The only thing that Napoleon could do was to send troops to Jutland (that would only require marching), but there were no British in Jutland - they weren't out to conquer territory. After the battle, as Denmark joined Napoleon, the emperor did send a corps of Spanish mercenaries to help bolster the defence of Denmark. If you are cynically inclined, you could be tempted to think that by doing so, he also assured the continued loyalty of the Danes, as well as get some troublesome Spaniards away from Spain. The Spanish troops have a special place in Danish history. They fraternised with the local population, took wives and many settled, adding a dash of Mediterranean flavour to our country.

>>Would not the Norwegians and Swedes have demanded independence anyway at some point?<<

The Swedes were independent from Denmark - had been since 1523. Not only that, but they were at this point still the arch-enemies of Denmark, and as they joined the allied side in the Napoleonic Wars, it soon took on the familiar form of a Swedish-Danish war. And it were the Swedes who dictated the peace to Denmark in 1814, demanding that we hand over Norway to them.

The Norwegians would most likely had demanded independence at some point. Denmark-Norway, as it was officially called, was a united kingdom with theoretical equality between the two realms. Of course, in practice Norway remained ruled from Copenhagen and wasn't too fond of it. But the relationship was stable and tolerable to both sides before 1807, but after the British made off with the fleet and established a permanent naval presence in Danish waters, communications between the two realms became impossible. So the only way Norway could be administrated was from Christiania (the later Oslo) by local civil servants. As the war dragged on, the Norwegians began to think, that if they could rule themselves in times of war, why not in times of peace? As the war drew to a close, the Norwegians decided to declare independence and draw up a democratic constitution. They also invited the Danish crown prince to be king (as you can imagine, his father, the king,was not amused when he accepted). But the Norwegian dream of independence came to naught, when Denmark (who hadn't yet recognised Norwegian independence) at the negotiations in Kiel in 1814 were forced to cede Norway to Sweden. Swedish troops then forced Norway into a union with Sweden in stead. That union lasted until 1905. If Norway had remained part of Denmark-Norway, I suspect it would have lasted just as long.

>>Well thought out. But did the Danes think about the fate of the Jews in 1940? I doubt it.<<

I think you do the Danish politicians a disservice. The Jewish population in Denmark was well integrated and respected, and the government saw them as citizens to be protected no less than Christians. But you are right, of course, that no-one in 1940 foresaw the events of 1943, and that's not what I tried to say either. What I meant is, that the Danish government acted from the desire to keep Denmark as a 'retsstat' (state governed by the rule of law), where all the citizens would be protected from the vagaries and whims of the Nazis. And they succeeded for almost three years (German pressure did lead to more and more infringements of civil liberties during that time - the worst being the decision to intern all communists in 1941 - but not to a complete breakdown until August 1943).

>>He proved them wrong. I suppose you have seen "Triumph of the Will". The German Army was angry about that movie as they were so neglected by her.<<

Haven't seen it in its entirety - there's a limit to how much goose-stepping and saluting I can take within a short time-frame. ;D I hadn't heard that the army had a problem with it. Why would they? It was a movie about a party rally, not about the armed forces. I would have thought, that if the generals did object, it would be against having their soldiers present at such a political event at all - not against being neglected.

That's it for now

Rasmus

[Die Fledermaus]

Hi again Rasmus,

>> I loved your photos. Ships really are some of the most impressive things mankind has ever made. <<

Thanks. I will dig out more in due course.

>> Wasn't the shipyards in Newport News more important to the navy? As I recall, most of the big carriers in WWII were build there. <<

New York also had the very important and busy Brooklyn Navy Yard where carriers and battleships were built, the vital port of New York, the primary embarkation points for supplies and soldiers, huge oil storage facilities in sight on the New Jersey shore, America's financial capital (Wall Street) less than a mile from the water - not to mention my apartment here half a mile from the water's edge. The embarkation point was the Brooklyn Army Terminal a mile from me:
>> During World War II, the terminal was responsible for shipment of 85% of army equipment and personnel overseas. <<

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Army_Terminal

Nothing was more important than NY harbor; nothing was as important except maybe the capitol itself.

Not so much him, but I've heard that John Gielgud, the classic >> Shakespearean actor, didn't know what kind of movie it was going to be. I don't know if it's true or not. <<

Something about that strikes me as funny. ;D Bet he would not have minded if he had to have sex with Helen Mirren.

>> I just had an image of Danes dancing in a circle covered with sacrificed animals' blood in a voodoo ceremony!

We call that 'Saturday night, downtown.' <<

;D Do Danes go a little nutty or are they restrained?

>> These are the ships that the British took in 1807 www.navalhistory.dk/English/Naval_Lists/Periods/1807.htm. 14 Ships-of-the-Line and about as many frigates. There were ships not in Copenhagen at the time, which escaped capture. Amongst them the Ship-of-the-Line Prins Christian Frederik. That was destroyed in battle against a British squadron in 1808 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zealand_Point. <<

Another keeper, all that. Thanks.

>> At this point the navy really was too big for Denmark. The country didn't have the money, resources or manpower to keep them mobilised. One of the reasons for the British success in 1801 and in 1807 was that the Danish ships were in the harbour at Copenhagen - demobilised and without rigging. <<

Sheez. Indeed why keep them then.

>> The only thing that Napoleon could do was to send troops to Jutland (that would only require marching), but there were no British in Jutland - they weren't out to conquer territory. <<

Makes sense.

>> After the battle, as Denmark joined Napoleon, the emperor did send a corps of Spanish mercenaries to help bolster the defence of Denmark. <<

Did the Danes welcome them? Were they disciplined??

>> If you are cynically inclined, you could be tempted to think that by doing so, he also assured the continued loyalty of the Danes, as well as get some troublesome Spaniards away from Spain. <<

Reminds me of some Moorish activities in Valencia in "El Cid".

>> The Spanish troops have a special place in Danish history. They fraternised with the local population, took wives and many settled, adding a dash of Mediterranean flavour to our country. <<

Had no idea. Fewer blondes there now, huh?

>> The Swedes were independent from Denmark - had been since 1523. Not only that, but they were at this point still the arch-enemies of Denmark, and as they joined the allied side in the Napoleonic Wars, it soon took on the familiar form of a Swedish-Danish war. And it were the Swedes who dictated the peace to Denmark in 1814, demanding that we hand over Norway to them. <<

I assume that was the traitor Bernadotte's doing?

>> The Norwegians would most likely had demanded independence at some point. Denmark-Norway, as it was officially called, was a united kingdom with theoretical equality between the two realms. Of course, in practice Norway remained ruled from Copenhagen and wasn't too fond of it. But the relationship was stable and tolerable to both sides before 1807, but after the British made off with the fleet and established a permanent naval presence in Danish waters, communications between the two realms became impossible. <<

Ah! Interesting.

>> So the only way Norway could be administrated was from Christiania (the later Oslo) by local civil servants. As the war dragged on, the Norwegians began to think, that if they could rule themselves in times of war, why not in times of peace? As the war drew to a close, the Norwegians decided to declare independence and draw up a democratic constitution. They also invited the Danish crown prince to be king (as you can imagine, his father, the king,was not amused when he accepted). <<

Ha!!

>> But the Norwegian dream of independence came to naught, when Denmark (who hadn't yet recognised Norwegian independence) at the negotiations in Kiel in 1814 were forced to cede Norway to Sweden. Swedish troops then forced Norway into a union with Sweden in stead. That union lasted until 1905. If Norway had remained part of Denmark-Norway, I suspect it would have lasted just as long. <<

Logical.

>> But you are right, of course, that no-one in 1940 foresaw the events of 1943, and that's not what I tried to say either. What I meant is, that the Danish government acted from the desire to keep Denmark as a 'retsstat' (state governed by the rule of law), where all the citizens would be protected from the vagaries and whims of the Nazis. And they succeeded for almost three years (German pressure did lead to more and more infringements of civil liberties during that time - the worst being the decision to intern all communists in 1941 - but not to a complete breakdown until August 1943). <<

How bad was it subsequent to that? How did things go for the Jews?

>> I hadn't heard that the army had a problem with it. Why would they? It was a movie about a party rally, not about the armed forces. <<

They still wanted more film time as they did have troops there at Nuremberg. I think only some motorcycles troops were shown, and that was all.

>> I would have thought, that if the generals did object, it would be against having their soldiers present at such a political event at all - not against being neglected. <<

Interesting point which I considered also. But I suppose by then they assumed Hitler was the state and why not go along before the SS or SA or party figures dominated the Heer itself. Got to get in the game.

That's it for now. Tale care.

Tom

[Rasmus]

Hello again Tom

>>New York also had the very important and busy Brooklyn Navy Yard where carriers and battleships were built, the vital port of New York, the primary embarkation points for supplies and soldiers, huge oil storage facilities in sight on the New Jersey shore, America's financial capital (Wall Street) less than a mile from the water - not to mention my apartment here half a mile from the water's edge. The embarkation point was the Brooklyn Army Terminal a mile from me:
>> During World War II, the terminal was responsible for shipment of 85% of army equipment and personnel overseas. <<

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Nice of the navy to take such pains to make your apartment secure from dastardly foreign shore-bombardments.

>>Something about that strikes me as funny. Bet he would not have minded if he had to have sex with Helen Mirren.<<

At least it would have given him a clue as to which kind of movie it was.

>>Do Danes go a little nutty or are they restrained?<<

Normally very inwards-looking, bordering on the stand-offish and sullen. But that's all thrown to the winds when the heavy drinking starts. Then people over-compensate. Especially amongst the very young there has developed a culture of drinking themselves to a stupor at any given opportunity. That often leads to trouble downtown at weekends.

>>Sheez. Indeed why keep them then.<<

Protection. The navy was seen as the single most important element of Danish national security. And I suppose that the ships could all be mobilised and put to sea for a short period, if only the navy had the time to prepare before the enemy arrived. The British didn't give it the time.

>>Did the Danes welcome them? Were they disciplined??<<

At first, yes. Even if they accidentally did burn down one of the castles, where they were stationed. Actually, they were not here only to protect Denmark, but to be part of a planned Danish-French invasion of Sweden that never materialised. When Spain revolted against Napoleon in 1808, the Spanish troops in Denmark revolted as well, egged on by British agents, and most of them managed to escape on British ships.

>>Had no idea. Fewer blondes there now, huh?<<

Actually, blond hasn't been the dominant hair colour in Denmark since the Stone Age, despite the racist fantasies of a bygone age. Maybe the percentage of blonds is a little higher here, but only marginally.

>>I assume that was the traitor Bernadotte's doing?<<

He certainly gave the Swedes the benefit of his command-abilities - and he led the negotiations with Denmark in 1814. But in any case I doubt Denmark could have hold out against the anti-Napoleon coalition for long. And the Congress of Vienna ratified the Swedish land grab, so that would probably have happened no matter how Denmark was defeated.

>>>They also invited the Danish crown prince to be king (as you can imagine, his father, the king, was not amused when he accepted). <<

Ha!!<<

The crown prince was afterwards sent, as a punishment to Odense, my home-town as it happens, to waste away as the administrator of a provincial backwater. But he did become king of Denmark when his father died in 1830.

>>How bad was it subsequent to that?<<

Bad. Direct German military control. The Danish police was interned and then sent off to concentration camps in Germany. In it's place, the Germans created a auxiliary police corps (Hilfzpolizei or Hipo's), which in reality was little more than a tool of oppression. Saboteurs were executed without trial. The Germans and their Danish collaborators retaliated against resistance activity by shooting prominent Danes ('clearing killings') and by bombing famous Danish sites (there was even coined a term for such bombings - 'schalburgtage' - after Schalburg, a Danish SS-volunteer who had fallen on the Russian Front). In 1944 Danish resentment about executions and curfew lead to a general strike (also inspired by the Normandy landings), which escalated to street fighting in Copenhagen. Amazingly it ended when the Germans backed down and accepted the demands of the Danish resistance leadership (primarily lifting of the curfew and staying of some executions). I guess that at that point they just couldn't spare the manpower to fight another city revolt. Or maybe they really did want to go easy on their 'fellow Aryans.'

>>How did things go for the Jews?<<

By the time that the policy of collaboration collapsed, the resistance and the Jewish society had a system in place for a speedy evacuation. So the larger part of the Danish Jewry was brought safely to Sweden. Only a few were unlucky enough to be caught. This was also a result of a few good Germans. A German diplomat, Georg Duckwitz, warned a Danish politician with connections to the resistance, that an operation against the Jews was in the offing, so they could be warned in time. And some German soldiers deliberately turned a blind eye to the small boats ferrying Jews across to Sweden. The German commander in Denmark even tried to claim responsibility after the war, but not many believe that. But of all the Jewish populations in Nazi-occupied Europe, the Danish suffered the least.

All for now

Rasmus

[Die Fledermaus]

Hello again Rasmus,

>> Normally very inwards-looking, bordering on the stand-offish and sullen. But that's all thrown to the winds when the heavy drinking starts. Then people over-compensate. Especially amongst the very young there has developed a culture of drinking themselves to a stupor at any given opportunity. That often leads to trouble downtown at weekends. <<

Interesting.

>> Protection. The navy was seen as the single most important element of Danish national security. And I suppose that the ships could all be mobilised and put to sea for a short period, if only the navy had the time to prepare before the enemy arrived. The British didn't give it the time. <<

Perfidious Albion.

>> When Spain revolted against Napoleon in 1808, the Spanish troops in Denmark revolted as well, egged on by British agents, and most of them managed to escape on British ships. <<

Sheeez. How many were there??

>> Actually, blond hasn't been the dominant hair colour in Denmark since the Stone Age, despite the racist fantasies of a bygone age. Maybe the percentage of blonds is a little higher here, but only marginally. <<

I know that. When I painted a Viking ship and crew I think I had 20% with blonde hair of different shades.

>> The crown prince was afterwards sent, as a punishment to Odense, my home-town as it happens, to waste away as the administrator of a provincial backwater. But he did become king of Denmark when his father died in 1830. <<

Fascinating stories.

>> Bad. Direct German military control. The Danish police was interned and then sent off to concentration camps in Germany. <<

Were they feared? I assume most bad it back?

>> In it's place, the Germans created a auxiliary police corps (Hilfzpolizei or Hipo's), which in reality was little more than a tool of oppression. Saboteurs were executed without trial. The Germans and their Danish collaborators retaliated against resistance activity by shooting prominent Danes ('clearing killings') and by bombing famous Danish sites (there was even coined a term for such bombings - 'schalburgtage' - after Schalburg, a Danish SS-volunteer who had fallen on the Russian Front). In 1944 Danish resentment about executions and curfew lead to a general strike (also inspired by the Normandy landings), which escalated to street fighting in Copenhagen. Amazingly it ended when the Germans backed down and accepted the demands of the Danish resistance leadership (primarily lifting of the curfew and staying of some executions). I guess that at that point they just couldn't spare the manpower to fight another city revolt. Or maybe they really did want to go easy on their 'fellow Aryans.'<<

Great stuff!! A keeper.How much collaboration was there?

Ever see a movie called "Edge of Darkness" with Errol Flynn? A British SOE fantasy - Norway erupts in revolt. I think more Norwegians died in that battle than in the real war. Fun, though.

>> By the time that the policy of collaboration collapsed, the resistance and the Jewish society had a system in place for a speedy evacuation. So the larger part of the Danish Jewry was brought safely to Sweden. Only a few were unlucky enough to be caught. This was also a result of a few good Germans. A German diplomat, Georg Duckwitz, warned a Danish politician with connections to the resistance, that an operation against the Jews was in the offing, so they could be warned in time. And some German soldiers deliberately turned a blind eye to the small boats ferrying Jews across to Sweden. The German commander in Denmark even tried to claim responsibility after the war, but not many believe that. But of all the Jewish populations in Nazi-occupied Europe, the Danish suffered the least. <<

Thanks for all this great info.

Did Danes (Christians) wear Stars of David?

All for now

Tom - busy busy, but back later.

[Rasmus]

Hey Tom

>>Perfidious Albion.<<

;D

Yeah. The amount of hypocrisy the British are capable of is always a source of amusement. They feel free to violate neutrality, the rules of war or the Geneva Convention and other such trivial matters at any time. If it is for the good of the nation and protection of British dominance, then there's nothing wrong with it. But if anyone else should ever dare to do such things...

BTW. Did you know that the Royal Navy saw the British action against the Danish fleet as such a triumph, that it became a term? Before WWI Jackie Fisher talked about 'Copenhagening' the German fleet - that is, attack the German ports during peacetime and steal or sink the German ships.

>>Sheeez. How many were there??<<

Originally 14.000. I don't know how many of those the British evacuated.

>>Were they feared? I assume most bad it back?<<

Were the concentration camps feared? I should think so. But yes, most of the policemen made it back. They were sent to Buchenwald and other concentration camps - not the extermination camps - pretty late in the war (1944). It takes longer than a year to starve a well-fed Dane to death, even on concentration camp-rations. But some did die from random brutality.

>>How much collaboration was there?<<

Depends on what you consider collaboration. After all, the government promoted collaboration 1940-43, so few Danish businessmen saw any problem in dealing with the Germans. There was even given permission by the Danish state for the formation of a Danish volunteer SS-unit, Frikorps Danmark, to serve on the eastern front. That made it harder to argue that they were traitors after the war... not that that stopped anyone.

In the frenzy after the liberation, just having said anything that could be construed as being German-friendly was enough to get you arrested. The police hadn't returned from the camps yet, so as the Germans left, the resistance, many of them no more than "latter day saints" as they were called, took over as law-enforcers for a while. And there was no shortage of outright vigilante-action going on as well. Especially the 'German girls' - women who had had some kind of relationship to German soldiers - were brutalised.

But if by collaborators you mean hard-core Nazi-sympathisers, there were a not that many; certainly no more than there were resistance fighters. The aforementioned Frikorps Danmark as well as the Hipo-men were in that category. But the vast majority of the population stuck to being resigned - not loving the Germans but not doing anything about them either. The term "the clenched fist in the trouser-pocket" was coined for that kind of attitude after the war.

>>Ever see a movie called "Edge of Darkness" with Errol Flynn? A British SOE fantasy - Norway erupts in revolt. I think more Norwegians died in that battle than in the real war. Fun, though. <<

I might have. Many years ago I did see an old film about the German occupation in Norway, but I can't remember the title or the story or who was in it.

>>Did Danes (Christians) wear Stars of David?<<

No - and neither did the Jews. You're thinking of the scene from the movie Exodus, right? Where they talk about the Danish king wearing the Star of David and then the entire population emulating it. That scene always makes me cringe a little because it is completely made up. Thanks to the policy of collaboration, there was never any need for it. The Danish Jews did not loose any of their civil rights as long as that policy was in force, and no form of discrimination was allowed, so they were never required to wear the Star of David. When the policy of collaboration collapsed in 1943, the German authorities decided to move straight to rounding up the Jews and sending them off to the camps (which was foiled by the resistance), and in the short interval between the two events there was no time to implement any kind of discriminatory regulations. So no Stars of David with the word 'Jøde' at any time in Danish history. The Exodus-scene was probably inspired by the fact that the King’s daily rides through Copenhagen became a focus-point for feelings of national unity during the occupation, especially when he started wearing a Danish flag lapel-pin.

All for now

Rasmus

[Die Fledermaus]

>> Yeah. The amount of hypocrisy the British are capable of is always a source of amusement. <<

The Irish "Potato Famine", and the Opium Wars, are rock bottom in morality. At least they had some ethics if done in broad daylight - Gandhi's tactics would have been much less successful if done in Nazi Germany or today's China.

>> Before WWI Jackie Fisher talked about 'Copenhagening' the German fleet - that is, attack the German ports during peacetime and steal or sink the German ships. <<

Ha! I thought the Japanese started that stuff! ;D

>>Sheeez. How many were there??<<

Originally 14.000. I don't know how many of those the British evacuated.

>> most of the policemen made it back. They were sent to Buchenwald and other concentration camps - not the extermination camps - pretty late in the war (1944). It takes longer than a year to starve a well-fed Dane to death, even on concentration camp-rations. But some did die from random brutality. <<

Interesting. The French police were left to control things in France. My father in the Army CID (detectives) worked with a French detective in 1944. Much black market stuff. Violent stuff too.

>> government promoted collaboration 1940-43, so few Danish businessmen saw any problem in dealing with the Germans. There was even given permission by the Danish state for the formation of a Danish volunteer SS-unit, Frikorps Danmark, to serve on the eastern front. That made it harder to argue that they were traitors after the war... not that that stopped anyone. <<

Didn't know all that.

>> Especially the 'German girls' - women who had had some kind of relationship to German soldiers - were brutalised. <<

Wonder why they were so singled out.

>> But if by collaborators you mean hard-core Nazi-sympathisers, there were a not that many <<

OK. Thanks.

>> No - and neither did the Jews. You're thinking of the scene from the movie Exodus, right? Where they talk about the Danish king wearing the Star of David and then the entire population emulating it. That scene always makes me cringe a little because it is completely made up. Thanks to the policy of collaboration, there was never any need for it. The Danish Jews did not loose any of their civil rights as long as that policy was in force, and no form of discrimination was allowed, so they were never required to wear the Star of David. When the policy of collaboration collapsed in 1943, the German authorities decided to move straight to rounding up the Jews and sending them off to the camps (which was foiled by the resistance), and in the short interval between the two events there was no time to implement any kind of discriminatory regulations. So no Stars of David with the word 'Jøde' at any time in Danish history. The Exodus-scene was probably inspired by the fact that the King’s daily rides through Copenhagen became a focus-point for feelings of national unity during the occupation, especially when he started wearing a Danish flag lapel-pin. <<

Very interesting. Fiction becomes reality.


later, and thanks again for the info,

Tom

[Rasmus]

Hey Tom

Sorry for letting things slide for so long. I don't even have a plausible excuse. I just didn't get around to it.

>>At least they had some ethics if done in broad daylight - Gandhi's tactics would have been much less successful if done in Nazi Germany or today's China.<<

Oh, for sure. I never intended to say that Britain was in any way in the same league as guys like that. But Britain is a good example of the dictum that history is written by the winners. All the more unsightly aspects of British policy has been forced in the background for so long, that many people don't even know about it nowadays.

>>Ha! I thought the Japanese started that stuff!<<

They did. If you reckon with the Russo-Japanese War, which also started with a torpedo-boat sneak-attack on Port Arthur to sink the Russian fleet. It didn't succeed, but it was one of the major inspirations for Pearl Harbor, with Yamamoto determined to achieve the destruction of the enemy at the onset that had eluded his former commander and mentor Togo. Funny thing is that at the time, in 1904, the Japanese surprise attack was hailed in British and American media as a courageous and daring tactic. What a difference some 40 odd years and the right enemy can make, eh? ;D

>>Interesting. The French police were left to control things in France. My father in the Army CID (detectives) worked with a French detective in 1944. Much black market stuff. Violent stuff too.<<

I think the case of the French police was one of the determining factors behind the German decision to intern the Danish police. The French police had often assisted the invading allied troops and had partaken in the Paris-uprising. The Germans were still worried about the possibility of an amphibious allied landing in Denmark, and they didn't want the Danish police to act like a fifth column like the French had, so off to the camps they went.

>>Wonder why they were so singled out.<<

Women sleeping with the enemy is always treated much harsher than most male collaborators, at least when it comes to lynch-justice rather than a real trial. Probably just a result of deep-rooted sexist mindsets. ("Nobody touches our women!")

>>Very interesting. Fiction becomes reality.<<

Yeah. I would prefer to take a rather relaxed attitude towards 'Hollywood-history'. It isn't meant to be taken seriously, and can actually be a lot of fun to watch. The problem is that these days many people use films as their primary source of information about history, so 'artistic licence' tends to be taken as fact.

By for now. Hopefully I won't be as long in answering next time.

Rasmus

[Die Fledermaus]

>> Sorry for letting things slide for so long. I don't even have a plausible excuse. I just didn't get around to it. <<

Sounds like me! Although the thing with me is I have routines. If I get out of the routine, including checking for and answering certain e-mails, next thing I know it is half a year later!

>> All the more unsightly aspects of British policy has been forced in the background for so long, that many people don't even know about it nowadays. <<

I am no fan of the Brits, not after I learned of the Opium Wars and the Great Hunger they permiotted in Ireland. Among other places.

>> If you reckon with the Russo-Japanese War, which also started with a torpedo-boat sneak-attack on Port Arthur to sink the Russian fleet. It didn't succeed, but it was one of the major inspirations for Pearl Harbor, with Yamamoto determined to achieve the destruction of the enemy at the onset that had eluded his former commander and mentor Togo. Funny thing is that at the time, in 1904, the Japanese surprise attack was hailed in British and American media as a courageous and daring tactic. <<

Ironic.

Read a book that has been highly recommended to me, on Midway - Shattered Sword: The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully (Paperback - Nov 19, 2007)?

>> I think the case of the French police was one of the determining factors behind the German decision to intern the Danish police. The French police had often assisted the invading allied troops and had partaken in the Paris-uprising. The Germans were still worried about the possibility of an amphibious allied landing in Denmark, and they didn't want the Danish police to act like a fifth column like the French had, so off to the camps they went. <<

I assume Germans had more civic work to do controlling things?

>>Very interesting. Fiction becomes reality.<<

>> The problem is that these days many people use films as their primary source of information about history, so 'artistic licence' tends to be taken as fact. <<

"These days"? They did in 1915 with "Birth of a Nation" - causing the rise of the KKK.

And there you go!

The Members Only forum, of which this is a sub-board, is not always going to be open to guests. So please take one minute to register so access is always available.