”[Denmark] is the only case we know of in which the Nazis met with open native resistance, [and] the result seems to have been that those exposed to it changed their minds. They themselves apparently no longer looked upon the extermination of a whole people as a matter of course. They had met resistance based on principle, and their ‘toughness’ had melted like butter in the sun; they had even been able to show a few timid beginnings of genuine courage.
That the ideal of ‘toughness’…was nothing but a myth of self-deception, concealing a ruthless desire for conformity at any price, was clearly revealed at the Nuremberg Trials, where the defendants accused and betrayed each other and assured the world that they ‘had always been against it’–or claimed, as Eichmann was to do, that their best qualities had been ‘abused’ by their superiors. (In Jerusalem, he accused ‘those in power’ of having abused his ‘obedience.’) …The atmosphere had changed, and although most of them must have known that they were doomed, not a single one of them had the guts to defend the Nazi ideology.”
Hannah Arendt, “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.”
I want everyone to go read that link about Danish resistance, please, because it’s a very good example of what to emphasize:
- Economic disruption
- Independent press
- Defense of marginalized people by word and deed
Yes, PLEASE read up on Denmark. the link is short & super basic, but gives a solid overview.
As a descendant of resistance members I do not want you all to get this twisted:
It came to blows. Often. There were shoot outs and people had guns. My family stored many of those guns. They sabotaged everything. And they bombed their offices, usually when no-one was in them. These were thousands of communists and anarchists and farmers and random working class folks and they had rifles. Publicly shaming people who associated with the Nazis was a big part of it too and just making life difficult for them on a day-to-day…
Denmark is the only country honored collectively at Yad Vashem as the “righteous among the nations.”
Tag: world war ii
”[Denmark] is the only case we know of in which the Nazis met with open native resistance, [and] the result seems to have been that those exposed to it changed their minds. They themselves apparently no longer looked upon the extermination of a whole people as a matter of course. They had met resistance based on principle, and their ‘toughness’ had melted like butter in the sun; they had even been able to show a few timid beginnings of genuine courage.
That the ideal of ‘toughness’…was nothing but a myth of self-deception, concealing a ruthless desire for conformity at any price, was clearly revealed at the Nuremberg Trials, where the defendants accused and betrayed each other and assured the world that they ‘had always been against it’–or claimed, as Eichmann was to do, that their best qualities had been ‘abused’ by their superiors. (In Jerusalem, he accused ‘those in power’ of having abused his ‘obedience.’) …The atmosphere had changed, and although most of them must have known that they were doomed, not a single one of them had the guts to defend the Nazi ideology.”
Hannah Arendt, “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.”
I want everyone to go read that link about Danish resistance, please, because it’s a very good example of what to emphasize:
- Economic disruption
- Independent press
- Defense of marginalized people by word and deed
The countries most successful at protecting their Jewish populations from German extermination were not those with the strongest military (USSR) or most successful violent resistance (Yugoslavia, Greece). In fact, the regions of greatest violence quite naturally suffered the greatest death toll.
It was in Denmark and Bulgaria, where communities refused point-blank to collaborate in the Holocaust, that Jewish citizens were most successfully protected.
Even the Nazis, even at the height of total war, had trouble dealing with principled nonviolent resistance by a large community.
Well, the Danish and Bulgarians were able to focus on rescuing Jewish people because the Nazis were ruling with an extremely light hand in those countries. Nazi rhetoric viewed Danes as racially pure, and Germany wanted to win Denmark over. Bulgaria, in the meantime, had joined the Axis of its own free will, and was thus similarly well-treated. Non-Jewish people had enough freedom, and governments had enough autonomy, to take action on behalf of Jewish people.
Many countries weren’t given an option of whether or not to collaborate in the Holocaust. Poland is the best example; the Polish resistance was violent because the Nazi occupation was bent on murdering as many people as possible – Jews, Gentiles, they didn’t really care. The mission was to eliminate Poland. This being the case, non-Jewish Polish resisters had very little time to focus on helping the Jews, because they were fighting for their own lives. Had they attempted nonviolent resistance, they would have been slaughtered in even greater numbers.
Whether violent or nonviolent resistance is more appropriate seems, to me, to depend on what the oppressor is bringing. If they come under a pretense of compromise, offering collaboration, nonviolent resistance will work – not that violent resistance won’t also work, but there’s opportunity for a wider range of tactics. If they come with violence, they must be met with violence.
just moving along like everyone else 