0

Denmark in World War 2 surrendered in a day. It remained occupied well until the end of the war in May 1945. It surrendered because its armed forces could not realistically resist the Wehrmacht. During the war there was a Danish resistance who among other things helped some thousands of Danish Jews escape to Sweden.

Was it moral for Danish resistance to murder collaborators considering that it would, IMO, not have any impact or have a negative impact on the Danish peoples, and negligible impact on the war?

Improve this question
New contributor
max is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
10
  • 4
    This really isn't the right site to ask for discussion of opinion-related topics because both discussion and opinion-based questions are discouraged. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about this topic to direct you to a better site.
    – David Gudeman
    Commented Jul 6 at 5:50
  • 2
    "collaborator" is too broad. One might see everyone a collaborator who does not actively resist or sabotage the Germans. Others would deem someone to be a collaborator only if he actively betrays dissenters to the Gestapo.
    – vsz
    Commented Jul 6 at 12:49
  • 1
    @vsz The word "collaborator" derives from Latin "collaborare", to labour together. If a fellow engineer works with me on a project, we collaborate; someone who merely fails to sabotage my project is not a collaborator. If there is a military occupation, "collaborator" generally implies that the person has actively supported the invaders.
    – Simon Crase
    Commented Jul 6 at 21:16
  • 2
    IMHO "murder" is emotive in this context: many people don't use the word "murder" when a soldier kills an enemy in battle, or the victim of aggression kills in self defence. Courts often have to decide whether a killing was murder, manslaughter, or justified homicide.
    – Simon Crase
    Commented Jul 6 at 21:21
  • 2
    @SimonCrase actively supported, in what exactly? Worked in a bakery and sold them bread? Delivered them supplies? Or ratted out resistance members? Even in "collaboration" there are many levels.
    – vsz
    Commented Jul 6 at 21:31

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

As strange as it sounds

When enemy territory has been subjected to belligerent occupation, the inhabitants of that area have a duty not to commit acts which would jeopardize the security of the occupant.

https://academic.oup.com/book/2637/chapter-abstract/143032469?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Richard Reeve Baxter (14 February 1921 – 25 September 1980) was a widely published American jurist [1] and from 1950 until his death the preeminent figure on the law of war

Personally, I am too left wing to believe in the "resistance" beyond mutual aid etc. for e.g. the jews, though obviously many nationalists won't agree. I wonder what they think of America's 8 year occupation of Iraq, if those helping America should be murdered?

In reality, life and war is too complex to take sides as if it were a sport, however despicable nazism is.

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    Excellent comment. The laws of war require that occupiers institute a reasonable level of rule of law in an occupied land, and treat the civilians fairly and reasonably. Killing of occupiers, if one is not in uniform, and when one's nation has surrendered, IS unlawful behavior. HOWEVER the national socialists, nor the fascists, adhered to rule of law in governing civilian populations, and did not treat them fairly. Murders of jews and gypsies, enforced slave labor, etc were a series of war crimes, so law of war principles did not apply to the civilians who were being mistreated either.
    – Dcleve
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:15
  • 1
    A critique though, the US invaded Iraq in the name of an all parties exile conference request, and occupied Iraq for only a little more than a year. That occupation had the endorsement of the UN. The US then set up an Iraqi government, which was followed by multiple elected governments, which the US military then assisted in fighting an anti-democratic insurgency for the next seven years. That all-parties conference included parties that have collectively formed the majority in every Iraqi election since, so it was a reasonable stand-in for an elected opposition.
    – Dcleve
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:26
  • thanks for your comments @Dcleve
    – andrós
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:45
  • 1
    I know leftist opposition to US interventions is usually strongly against the Iraq invasion. But with Iraq, the US behaved for the most part admirably per UN and democratic norms, and Iraq remains a rare middle east democracy today. As a pragmatic centrist, I was against the invasion as well, but for a different reason -- I anticipated the revival of Al Qaida, and its merging with arab nationalism, resulting in far more terrorism. And I considered the horrors of Baathist rule there to be less bad than a boosting of global jihadi terrorism.
    – Dcleve
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:54
  • 1
    I also was too pessimistic about our stubborness and effectiveness, and did not think Iraq would still be a democracy. Note, however, it was a near run thing. If McCain had not convinced Bush to implement the Surge, then Iraq would have descended into chaos, and we would have withdrawn under fire upon Obama's election. The "withdraw under fire" outcome followed by civil disorder, then rise of a new strongman, was what I predicted.
    – Dcleve
    Commented Jul 7 at 20:57
8

Denmark in World War 2 surrendered in a day because it was small compared to Germany and it had no tank battalions, no air force to speak of, and an insignificant navy with no submarines. Military resistance against the Wehrmacht was hence completely futile.

The fact that the Danish resistance could kill collaborators without Nazi reprisals was an informal arrangement between the Danes and the Germans.

Had the resistance instead targeted German occupation officials instead of Danish citizens, there would have been severe reprisals involving the random killing of Danish civilians.

The Danes were "allowed" to do this because the Nazi occupation officials considered the Danes to be the "little brothers" of the Germanic master race, and therefore cut them slack which was not given to the governments of other occupied countries.

The Danish movie "Citron og Flammen" is a dramatization of that peculiar wartime equilibrium.

Improve this answer
7
  • tnx the titbit of info
    – Rushi
    Commented Jul 6 at 6:42
  • 1
    I like this answer, although it doesn't address the issues of "ethics" or "morality" raised by the question. It may be that the facts are the best answer, and one must form his own opinions.
    – Wastrel
    Commented Jul 6 at 13:51
  • How does this answer the question in the title? Also, this could really use a supporting reference. It is far from logical. While I have no deep knowledge of the Danish experience, German occupation would not imply no policing. Killing occupiers would obviously trigger reprisals, whereas killing collaborators might be a local police matter. It does not imply a clean slate to a resistance. It seems more obvious that Germans would not invest significant resources into policing given they were fighting a war elsewhere.
    – Buck Thorn
    Commented Jul 7 at 10:13
  • 1
    wartime behavior is under to obligation to be logical. See the movie. My parents came from Denmark. Second-guessing nazi behavior from 80 years ago is a fruitless enterprise.
    – niels nielsen
    Commented Jul 7 at 16:58
  • 1
    @Groovy and niels nielson, both the answer and the comment would benefit from some references on the quantity and frequency of the killing of collaborators, killing of German officials, of whether there was a Quisling government of collaborators, and both collaborator and German reprisals, and how all compared to the occupation of say France or Poland. Niels, was a single movie your reference?
    – Dcleve
    Commented Jul 7 at 19:55
1

*** IMO, not have any impact or have a negative impact on the Danish peoples, and negligible impact on the war?

A good example of a loaded question. Now remove this from a question. :) Why ask a question with some padding inside trying to push the answer into a direction you like?

And answering your question - yes. Because people who work with enemies and for enemies ARE your enemies. And it's totally fine to kill your enemies who came and occupied your country during the war. Regardless of their passport. Moreover treason was always considered even a more serious moral wrongdoing. So actually from this point of view collaborators were morally are the first targets even before Wehrmacht staff.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .