What more can be said, by the large air vent on the home front and the jews? The debate about the betrayal or not, whether the failure or ignorance towards the jewish minority, have the passed in columns and debattprogrammer through weeks and months now.Hans Fredrik Dahl. Show more
the Thursday before christmas, we experienced to, and with a large, public seminar-version, in that the author asked himself for the blow in front of a crowd of 500 war-freaks of all ages and walks of life, gathered in samfunnshusets big hall to debate "What did the home front".
Rank and mørkkledd stood Marte Michelet there to defend the claim that the Norwegian resistance had failed the jews in 1942-43, when nearly half of them were transported to Poland to gasses to death while we stood to the wharf and so on.
We are so – while the mothers and infants, boys and grandparents, the sick and the old were jagd up langgangen and disappeared in the depths of the "Danube". Now, therefore, the people to hear what the author had to say about this. Was it perhaps our fault that the jews disappeared – by that our hjemmefront failed, as all have honored since!
In the audience were the opinions of shared, it seemed obvious from the scene. Some were for, others against Marte Michelet. Some came to take her, the other to defend the allegation of deceit; some would speak of was the case, others defend hjemmefrontens principle of struggle against fascism at any cost – almost then.Why did not home the jews?
Everyone's eyes seemed fastened of the author on the podium, as seminarets opponents came forward one by one – historieprofessorer, theologians, scientists, hjemmefrontforsvarere – complemented by the opposition of the benchuca to the defense of the father's or grandfather's honor. What did Michelet in the ground? She was a malicious attacker looking for a sensation or an objective lawyer for the case? Historian or troublemaker?
the Seminar was to provide answers, where the newspaper and television debates had insinuert more than to clarify the matter.
Let us try one conclusion: The five-six hours long, the debate seemed to collect most of that it actually is timely to ask the question Michelet did, and that the answers she provides – about failure, weakness and sisters from hjemmefrontens page – must be admitted as relevant to the history of the war. Brave Marte used to set salens has ever done.Startling book: Norwegian war hero knew about jødeaksjonen in several months,
But there was a moral or an actual clarification that happened? Let me take myself as an example here. Basically, the positive – settled. I read the book with great interest and would, if asked, recommend the hot. But I was also influenced by colleagues ' criticism: this is the moralisme, not historieskrivning; it was about what should have happened, more than about what actually happened.
And it can certainly be said. But how then to explain that which stands as an unquestionable fact yet (I have, after all, powered with okkupasjonshistorie in fifty years and interviewed countless actors). Next all provides the expression of the bad conscience with the jews. You should have done more, helped them the way the danes did. What is this bad conscience other than an expression of an ever-living morality? Of a mood or anfektelse which rests the reality of this entire tragedy and that is shared by all those involved?
The Norwegian resistance came up short – because it regarded the jews as the opportunity of another order – lower than the students ("the Norwegian student is the people's son"), is lower than other activists groups, lower than the heroes and their families. Jews may find themselves in to be harassed by the nazis, mostly; and pay more than the other and perhaps thousands of dollars if they would flee to Sweden. If they would, then ... – a lot of thought certainly not on the alerts either. At the back of the queue, which was their place.We can not accept that jews living in Norway unsafe Debate
But then comes the this Michelet and ask why and how – and wins thus receive recognition for the view that the bad conscience caused by a specific opinion of the jews – as second-class citizens. They hovered in a particularly danger of death under the nazis. But we realized it and took responsibility? Of the many manner to territories where that was presented at the seminar, we were reminded that even milorg-boss Jens Chr. Hauge could reel off temmelige jødefiendtlige statement in 1941 – as the expression of a completely normal, English sense of this group of people.
And money this that the jews were charged more than others to be rescued to Sweden? We do not understand how unfair this was, because we never really have taken over the us that the resistance cost, and that the circulation of money was an important part of the home front – by the side of courage and daring, of course.
the Costs were incurred, was the huge, and was financed from the government in London. Everything from illicit avser to motstandens kurervirksomhet, from undergrunnsnettverk to fluktruter and the car journey, everything was going to be funded. It demanded justice in the distribution.
the Boss of it all, a lawyer and banker by the name of Tor Skjønsberg, retaining socket, but glapp just in jødesaken, where prejudices and perceptions came to the surface and got raw – which led to episodes that do not serve the home front to honor.
So where are we after the fall Michelet-debate. Sadder but wiser . It is a position that also dress the meeting with the lone author and her steadfast calm, where she stands and defends his case. Defender a book, an interpretation of the past that probably affects most, in that it plays into our self-image. Our perception of the own role in the story.
It is probably not so great as we like to think.