Yom HaShoah 2026 Speech
Yom HaShoah/Holocaust Remembrance Day, May 24, 2026, Saskatoon Jewish Community Synagogue, Saskatoon, SK.
By Norman Gladstone
THE RESCUE OF DENMARK’S JEWS, 1943
Cherished survivors Kayla Hock and Klara Belkin, Rabbi Claudi, Co-chairs Jan and Ron Gitlin and members of the Yom HaShoah Committee, Councillor Dubois, Co-Presidents Robert Englebert and Michael Sharfstein, B’nai Brith President David Katzman, honoured and distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you, Stevn Goluboff, for your warm and welcoming introduction.
It is an honour to have been invited to Saskatoon to speak at this sacred commemoration acknowledging Yom HaShoah. As a member of the Board of Governors of the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre, an organization I have been associated with for over thirty years, I bring greetings to Congregation Agudas Israel and congratulate you on your ongoing commitment and endeavours to teach and commemorate the Holocaust.
The last time I had an opportunity to deliver a speech from this bimah was nearly 68 years ago, when mine was the second bar mitzvah held in what was then the brand-new Jewish Community Centre. My friend, and Steven’s older brother, Richard Goluboff, was the first.
I am guessing that one or two of you might be sitting there doing some mental arithmetic, so I will save you the exercise. I am 80 years old, 81 in July.
Of course, in 1958, the year of my Bar-Mitzvah, my only thoughts were to get through my torah portion and to get ready for the hockey season when the Jewish Community Centre would launch its first-ever boys’ team. I was the goalie on that team that finished first in the Saskatoon Playgrounds B Division. Apparently, since then – or so I have been told – that team has been mythologized as a major achievement in Saskatoon Jewish sports history.
When I grew up in Saskatoon during the 1950s and early 1960s, the Holocaust was neither commemorated nor taught. A silence had descended over the entire horrendous experience, not only here but throughout the Jewish diaspora.
Firstly, the enormity of what had happened was just too much to comprehend. It was inconceivable that Europe’s Jews had been murdered by the millions, despite the indisputable evidence.
Then there was the homegrown advice to survivors, who suddenly appeared in Canada in the early 1950s, that the best way to deal with the trauma of the past was not to talk about it. Some were told to forget that it even happened and to concentrate their efforts on the present and the future.
And thirdly, there was a measure of guilt by those Jews who lived through the war safely in North America. There was a feeling that more could have been done on their part to save their European brethren.
The person who broke the silence for me, and those in my age group, was our Hebrew School teacher, Chaim Kornfeld, who was a survivor of the Mauthausen concentration camp. He told us what happened, sometimes in graphic detail, much to the consternation of many of our parents. And it was he who engendered in me a deep interest in history and, in particular, the Holocaust.
In my mid-20s, I met a beautiful Danish woman, Birgit Westergaard – who happens to be sitting here today – on Kibbutz Ha’on in Israel. We were subsequently married in the Great Synagogue in Copenhagen by Rabbi Bent Melchior, whose father, Marcus Melchior, was the acting chief rabbi of Denmark during the war.
My father-in-law, Preben Westergaard, was a member of the Danish resistance in the city of Odense on the island of Funen.
My father-in-law was, in all respects, a modest yet reticent man who spoke little of his past. I must admit I don’t know what he did during the war, other than that he was a soldier in the Danish army, fulfilling his obligation to national service. When that force was disbanded by the Germans, he went underground. We have only his official armband, insignia, registration card and photographs, plus our imaginations, to sustain us.
Thus began my emotional and academic journey to study the 1943 rescue of Denmark’s Jews.
It is to the memories of my father-in-law, Preben Westergaard, and my teacher, Chaim Kornfeld, that I wish to dedicate my talk this afternoon.
We are gathered here to observe Yom HaShoah, to remember the six million innocent Jews who perished during the Second World War at the hands of the Germans and their eager collaborators. We are also here to honour the survivors and to pay homage to their strength, courage and resiliency. The Holocaust remains the darkest time in Jewish history and one of the most monstrous chapters in the history of the human race.
The Holocaust did not begin with ghettos, concentration camps or gas chambers. Instead, it started with hateful rhetoric, discriminatory laws, and extremist ideas creeping into the mainstream.
The great lie following the First World War, promulgated by Hitler and the budding Nazi party, was that Germany was defeated because it was stabbed in the back by those on the home front, most notably by the Jews. This lie was widely spread, notwithstanding the fact that 100,000 German Jews fought in the German Imperial army and that 12,000 of those gave their lives for the fatherland.
The stab-in-the-back conspiracy theory ignored those sacrifices and all the countless other contributions Jews made to Germany’s everlasting benefit. Instead, the Jews were characterized as being rich, greedy, powerful and secretly seeking world domination. Jews were defiling the pure Aryan German Volk and, accordingly, had to be removed from society. Of course, this was all an outrageous absurdity, yet these were the lethal seeds sown that ultimately led to the Holocaust.
If you believe history is only an accounting of the past, then I ask you to reconsider. When we study the past, we have to ask ourselves if there are parallels or repetitions relevant to our lives today. History never ends, but is ongoing. Very few current events happen in a vacuum.
It is commonly said that history teaches us lessons. Whether we learn those lessons is debatable, but we can never say we were not warned when societies make consequential choices.
Racism and hatred often appear camouflaged, cloaked in words of normalcy, pseudo-science, discredited academia, or presented in terms of grievances or societal threats that need to be combated. Fear is the common denominator. Generating fear of a perceived threat is a well-worn tactic that still finds an audience today among gullible individuals and entire societies.
When the guardrails of civil society are removed, and the removal is justified through propaganda and discriminatory laws that ultimately dehumanize groups of people, then such a society begins its self-disintegration. Crushed in this rush to extinguish a perceived peril is the essential human quality of empathy. Once empathy is removed, any and all things can happen.
When authoritarians gain power through whatever means, when immoral laws are enacted, when people are swept off the streets and deported without legal process, when institutions of learning are coerced until they bend the ideal of academic freedom to the will of the reigning leader, when cowardly elected officials fail to uphold their oath of office, when the rule of law is ignored or flaunted and when might means right, then we should all shudder and take heed – no matter where in the world we live.
We are at an inflection point in history – here, right now, today – facing world events that overwhelm us. Dormant viruses have re-emerged. Antisemitism, the world’s oldest hatred, has boldly resurfaced, along with fascism, which is no longer confined to the fringes. We feel helpless in a chaotic, unstable world that generates within us feelings of anxiety, uncertainty, and fear. We are deeply concerned about our employment, our families’ futures, our savings, and even the independence and unity of our beloved Canada or the survival of our treasured Israel.
The question we ask ourselves is: what can I, as an individual, possibly do in the face of such powerful forces? While I don’t have a magic answer, what I can suggest, based on the lessons of history, is that if we are steadfast in our democratic ideals, unyielding in our humanistic values, make smart decisions, and show moral courage, we will most likely weather the storms swirling around us.
There are numerous instances throughout recorded history in which ordinary people with brave and caring hearts, working together, thwarted the plans of the mightiest empires and frustrated the malignant designs of their leaders.
In 1943, that is precisely what happened in the tiny Kingdom of Denmark.
To understand the “how” and the “why” this happened, we need some historical background.
On April 9th, 1940, Nazi Germany launched an unprovoked and surprise attack on neutral Denmark, despite the signing of a non-aggression pact between the two countries 11 months before.
After brief skirmishes at the border and in Copenhagen – Denmark surrendered within hours of the invasion. What followed were more than five years of German occupation.
In every country Germany invaded during the Second World War, it immediately introduced discriminatory policies and laws against the local Jewish populations. As we are sadly aware, those policies inevitably led, in one degree or another, to ghettoization, incarceration, starvation, deportation, and enslavement, culminating in mass murder.
However, there was one notable – albeit temporary – exception to this German policy, and that exception was Denmark. Quite simply, the Germans left the Danish Jews alone. There were no restrictions imposed. No special identity cards, no yellow stars or placing Jews in ghettos. No constraints were placed on Jews regarding jobs, studies or movement. For Denmark’s Jews, life continued as normal – or as normal as any other Dane under the circumstances of wartime occupation.
That situation existed for three years and five months when it all changed. In October 1943, the Germans moved against Denmark’s Jews to deport them to concentration camps in other parts of occupied Europe. But before the German roundup occurred, thousands of Danish civilians spontaneously reacted to hide the majority of the Jewish population and, over a four-week period, secretly evacuated them to nearby neutral Sweden, thus saving the vast majority of Danish Jews from certain death. What the Danes achieved was, arguably, the greatest collective civilian rescue of Jews during the Second World War.
When Denmark surrendered to Germany in 1940, an extraordinary arrangement was struck. The Germans honoured Danish political independence and the royal house in exchange for Danish cooperation. In practical terms, this meant that all aspects of governance, including the country’s democratically elected parliament, civil service, judicial courts, army, and police, continued to function. The Germans were prohibited from issuing decrees. Thus, all German demands, irrespective of the real power structure, had to be negotiated on the diplomatic level. At least, that was the principle. The cooperation between the occupier and the occupied was based on common Danish-German interests in preserving law and order and maintaining trade and production.
While most Danes shared the common feelings of anxiety and fear in those early days of occupation, the Danish Jews felt particularly vulnerable. Jewish community leaders advised all members to stay calm and trust the Danish government. This trust was based on confidence in the country’s institutions to protect its Jewish citizens, as it had done for decades.
Of course, we have to wonder why Danes, and in particular the Danish Jews, were left in relative peace. Why were they treated differently from other Europeans? There is a three-part answer to this question: racial, economic and political.
There was the overarching Nazi racial ideology of the master race that embraced Danes as fellow “Aryans” and accorded them a privileged status in the greater German realm. Hitler and the Nazis idealized the Nordic peoples, considering them to be the pure Aryan race and were infatuated with Norse mythology.
In the early years, this fraternal feeling manifested itself as a relatively benign occupation that showcased a “model protectorate.” Denmark was to be the shining example of how wonderful life would be as a self-governing province of a greater Germany.
Economically, the Germans were obsessed with the idea that everything should be done to facilitate the uninterrupted flow of Danish goods to Germany. Agricultural products from Denmark represented a full 10% of Germany’s needs. Denmark, with a highly educated and exceptionally skilled workforce, produced precision-engineered goods and instruments that were in great demand.
Thirdly, there was the insistence by the Danish government that if cooperation was to be successful, all Danes, including Danish Jews, had to be treated equally. The Danish government was specific in its demand – and threatened to resign if the demand was not met – that there was to be no discriminatory policies levelled against Danish Jews. Further, the government demanded that there be no Gestapo and SS on Danish soil.
For a defeated nation, these were quite extraordinary demands. However, because Denmark was about to become integrated into the German economy, this allowed for some political maneuvering by the Danes. For a country with so few natural resources and dependent on manufacturing, agriculture and trade for survival, the Danes were adept at negotiating and making deals. For a country that invented LEGO, they knew a thing or two about building blocks.
Even at the infamous Wannsee Conference of January 1942, where the Germans adopted the Final Solution, which was to commit industrial-scale genocide against all of Europe’s Jews, the implementation was postponed in Denmark on the grounds that it might create general unrest.
Consequently, the Germans refrained from initiating any immediate operation against the relatively small Jewish population. For them, this was of marginal importance when weighed against the greater prize of Danish cooperation and stability within the country.
Another benefit of cooperation for the Germans was the reduction in the number and cost of maintaining an occupying force. The Jews could always be dealt with later.
The German Aryan affection bestowed upon the Danes was not commonly reciprocated. Throughout the occupation, Danes exhibited their contempt for the occupier. While there was no active underground military resistance in the early years of occupation, there was passive resistance. The Danes perfected the art of the Cold Shoulder, which dictated that no Dane should be friendly, let alone fraternize with a German.
King Christian X played a significant role in strengthening the country’s morale. He left his palace on horseback at eleven o’clock every morning to ride through the streets of Copenhagen. His only bodyguards were the citizens of the city who rode their bicycles beside him. Along his way, he refused to acknowledge salutes from German soldiers who sprang to attention as he passed.
A myth grew from these rides that the King wore a yellow Star of David in solidarity with his Jewish subjects. This didn’t happen because the Germans never introduced the yellow star or any other forms of Jewish identification. However, there is clear evidence of where the King’s sympathies lay. I quote from the Danish Resistance Museum in Copenhagen, which states:
“In September 1941, acting Prime Minister Buhl and Christian 10th discussed the threat of the yellow star being introduced in Denmark. They agreed that any German demands should be rejected on the basis of the Danish constitution. The King added that if such a demand were made, it would be best countered by all Danes wearing the Star of David.”
The occupation continued with little disturbance for nearly three years. Underground resistance was slow to form. Such activities centred on establishing communication and espionage links with the British and printing illegal newspapers. There were a few scattered incidents of sabotage, but nothing widespread. Worried about German reprisals, the general population shunned the resistance. The Danish government viewed the resistance as a group of troublemakers who could upset the status quo.
As for the Jewish population, life went on uninterrupted. One has to wonder why word of the Final Solution had not seeped into Denmark or, if it had, why the Danish Jews were not preparing to save themselves accordingly.
However, the relative calm of the occupation changed decisively in 1943.
As incredible as this sounds, a general democratic election was held in Denmark, with full German approval, on March 23rd of that year. Voter turnout was 89%. The result was that the five mainstream parties combined, won 95% of the vote while the Danish Nazi Party – yes, there was one – financially supported by the occupying Germans – was only able to muster 2%. A significant amount of the Nazi vote came from Denmark’s border area with Germany, where many ethnic German Danes resided, a substantial number of whom were Nazi sympathizers.
The election result was a resounding endorsement of the sitting government and democratic ideals and, indirectly, a rebuff of the German occupation.
An unintended consequence of the general election was a sense of empowerment amongst the population and growing dissatisfaction with the policy of cooperation. Many felt that “cooperation” was synonymous with “collaboration,” with little to distinguish the two. As an aside, it is still a hotly debated topic in Denmark today.
In addition, German losses at Stalingrad and in North Africa, along with the Allied invasion of Italy, which precipitated Mussolini’s fall, emboldened the Danes to act, believing the Germans were losing and the war’s end was imminent. Spontaneous civil unrest and rioting broke out across the country.
The embryonic underground resistance movements, though still lacking a central command and coordination, grew in both numbers and deeds. Planned sabotage and strikes rocked the nation. The underground press urged the population to cease all cooperation with the occupier.
By August 1943, the situation had deteriorated so dramatically that the alarmed Germans, under Reich Commissar Werner Best, demanded that the Danish government bring order to the country and institute the death penalty for sabotage.
The Danish government refused and resigned in protest on August 28th. Best imposed martial law the next day and assumed executive powers. The Germans placed the King under house arrest and interned the remaining units of the Danish military. The fiction of the “model protectorate” evaporated, and with it, so did the protection of the Jews.
With a state of emergency in place, Best saw an opportunity to rid Denmark of its Jews. He issued an order for a roundup on the evening of October 1st, which was the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. It was a time when most Jews would be found at home.
The raids would be conducted by Orpo – the German Order Police (Ordnungspolizei) – and the Gestapo, whose presence in Denmark would be a first.
In preparation for the coming aktion, Orpo entered Copenhagen’s Jewish Community office two weeks before and confiscated its membership files.
Although Werner Best initiated the plan, he paradoxically tried to distance himself from it. There is considerable evidence to suggest that he would have found it highly convenient if the Jews had found a way to escape and just disappeared.
To be clear, Werner Best was not motivated by compassion for the Jews but by concern for the political fallout that would result and its negative effect upon Germany. Best was convinced that a brutal crackdown on the Jews would precipitate significant social unrest, which, in turn, would lead to the disruption of the flow of vital Danish.
Best’s convoluted and contradictory reasoning was that if he could avoid being personally blamed for the Jewish persecutions and if no physical harm came to the Jews, he could perhaps reestablish good relations with the Danes, revert to the model protectorate, and, at the same time, boast to Hitler and Himmler that Denmark was now Judenfrei – free of Jews.
Such was the murky world of dishonest, self-serving Nazi careerists and opportunists.
The upshot was that Werner Best advised Georg Duckwitz, the marine attaché at the German Embassy in Copenhagen, of the impending roundup. On September 28th, Duckwitz, either on his own initiative or, most likely, on Best’s orders, revealed the plan of the imminent arrest of Jews to the leaders of the Danish Social Democratic party, with whom he had close relations. What followed was a series of events that were astonishing for their spontaneity, speed and decisiveness.
The politicians went directly to Jewish community leaders and informed them of the impending roundup.
Acting Chief Rabbi Marcus Melchior informed his synagogue congregants of the looming threat at a special morning service on September 29th and requested that they leave quickly to spread the word to the rest of the Jewish community. He also pleaded with them to leave their homes and take shelter elsewhere.
Civil servants, Lutheran priests, the staff of the Swedish Embassy, members of professions, other politicians, and professional associations also issued warnings. The German plans had become a wide-open secret. By and large, this communication worked as most Jews – some being warned more than once – responded appropriately. Within hours, Danish Jews managed to pack and make arrangements for their property, valuables, and businesses before going into hiding. Some did not.
On Friday, October 1st, 1943, the first raids occurred, resulting in 284 immediate arrests. The following weeks brought more captives. In total, 464 Jews were sent to the Theresienstadt concentration camp in Czechoslovakia.
Also, on October 1st, nearby neutral Sweden openly broadcast its willingness to give unconditional asylum to Jews. Sweden lies across a body of water called Øresund, only four kilometres from Denmark at its narrowest point. It seemed like the most obvious destination for the now-desperate Jews.
But how were the Jews to get to Sweden? And where were the Jews to hide until passage could be arranged? Few in the Jewish community had planned for such an eventuality, which is surprising, given that there were rumours of deportations swirling ever since the German police raided the Jewish Community office two weeks previously.
It was at this precise moment that rescuers – or should we call them angels – emerged.
Who were these rescuers? Who were the people and the organizations hurriedly put together to help the Danish Jews hide and then get them to Sweden?
First, I can tell you it was not the Danish Jewish Community, nor was it the Danish government. The Danish Jewish community sounded the alarm but had no organization in place to directly facilitate an escape plan. Everyone was left to their own devices.
As for the Danish government, anyone from the government or the civil service who helped did so unofficially as an individual.
The rescuers were ordinary Danes – bakers, carpenters, taxi drivers, nurses, teachers, clerks, street sweepers, dentists, bartenders, professors and priests – you name it. These people acted on their conscience. They began the rescue with startling speed within hours of the first warning of the impending roundup. Very few, if any, had training or expertise in subterfuge. They knew absolutely nothing about covert operations, but with typical Danish ingenuity, they figured it out.
A few Jews succeeded in fleeing the country on their own, but the vast majority needed the help of others. The entire Danish population seemed to be aware of the Germans’ diabolical scheme. Christian neighbours, colleagues, friends and, in numerous cases, total strangers offered accommodation or opened their doors upon request. They did this at significant personal risk and in substantial numbers.
These individual actions were spontaneous, sometimes chaotic, but ultimately effective. One day, the Jews were relatively secure in their own homes; the next day, they were fugitives. From one day to the next, ordinary, law-abiding citizens became rescuers and transformed into what the Germans would view as criminals working outside the law.
But hiding and moving large groups of people required much more than individuals could provide. The rescue had to be structured on a much broader scale. Literally, overnight, organizations were formed – or already existing entities repurposed their activities to help.
I would like to cite a few of many examples:
- There was the Folkekirken/The Danish Lutheran People’s Church, Denmark’s official church
The church’s hierarchy had taken an outspoken anti-Nazi position well before the occupation. On October 3rd, 1943, Bishop Fuglsang-Damgaard, the leader of Denmark’s Lutherans, issued a letter to be read in all churches, informing Danes of the Jewish plight and urging members to act. It was a confirmation of an already de facto situation where individual priests and congregants were hiding a considerable number of Jews. In part, the letter stated, and I quote:
“Despite different religious views, we shall therefore struggle to ensure the continued guarantee to our Jewish brothers and sisters of the same freedom we ourselves treasure more than life itself.
The leaders of the Danish Church have a clear understanding of the duty to be law-abiding citizens and would never revolt needlessly against those who exercise the functions of authority over us — but our conscience obliges us at the same time to maintain the law and to protest against any violation of rights. We will, therefore, unambiguously declare our allegiance to the doctrine that bids us to obey God more than man.”
It is here that the Danish church expressed the principle of personal responsibility.
- There were Doctors’ Groups and the Danish Hospitals
When Jews began appearing in hospitals seeking food or shelter, doctors moved swiftly into action. Jews were admitted to hospitals under fictitious names, with bogus ailments, and hidden throughout the wards until transportation could be arranged. Copenhagen’s Bispebjerg Hospital saw approximately two thousand Jews pass through its doors. Senior nurses organized taxis, ambulances and moving vans to transport their hidden charges to the coast.
Dr. Karl Henry Koster, the medical head of Bispebjerg Hospital, is quoted as saying afterwards: “It was the most natural thing to do. I would have helped any group of Danes being persecuted. The Germans picking on Jews made as much sense to me as picking on redheads.”
- Then there were Spur-of-the-Moment Organizations which, as I said, literally formed overnight
One example amongst several was a group formed in the port city of Helsingør – probably best known in the English-speaking world as Elsinore, the setting of another dramatic event, Shakespeare’s Hamlet. There was, indeed, something rotten in the state of Denmark.
A significant number of Jews gathered in Elsinore – some on their own and some with the aid of Danish rescuers – to seek a crossing. Elsinore was the closest Danish port to Sweden.
In response to seeing many despondent-looking Jews on the streets of Elsinore, four friends – a journalist, a bookbinder, a police administrator and a policeman – banded together to help.
They dubbed their group with the innocent-sounding name “The Elsinore Sewing Club” (Helsingør Syklub). Membership in the Sewing Club eventually swelled to 150. It organized hiding places for Jews along the coast and passage across the water to Sweden.
- The Danish Police played a significant role.
Once the persecution of the Jews started, the Danish police allied itself with the various underground movements and ad hoc organizations. The participation of the police was vital. Not only did the police overlook the open activity in the fishing villages and harbours, but they also created an escape route that they themselves organized and managed. On the night of the German aktion, the Danish police leadership issued a command that no Danish police officer was to participate in the arrest of Jews, nor were the coastal police permitted to arrest any Jews leaving the country.
- Then, there were the all-important captains and crews of the fishing boats situated in the harbours along Denmark’s east coast.
Without them, the rescue would fail.
The fishing boat became the symbol of the rescue.
The bravery of the fishermen who ferried Jews to Sweden cannot be overemphasized. The boats were small and, on average, carried from ten to fifteen passengers at a time, which meant multiple trips. Precise tallies of the number of trips do not exist because the rescue operation was completely grassroots and decentralized, but there would have been hundreds of sailings.
Some fishermen acted individually, while others formed groups and coordinated with the existing underground or hastily formed committees. Many fishing boat captains charged for the passage to Sweden, and some didn’t charge at all. It all depended on individuals and the circumstances. Supply and demand became economic determinants. At one point, various rescue organizations intervened to standardize the fare.
This was not a luxury cruise. Most passages took place at night to avoid detection by German naval patrols. The Jewish refugees – for that is what they now were – had to go below deck into the smelly and slimy holds, where fish had been stored. They were covered by nets and tarps to hide them in case the boat was stopped for inspection.
While it is tempting to feel moral disappointment, as if asking desperate people for money on what was otherwise an altruistic rescue, there was a financial reality. The Danish fishermen had to purchase black-market fuel and took enormous risks. In the event of capture, the boat would be impounded, and the captain and crew would most likely face jail time or even death. Rabbi Marcus Melchior, in his memoir, stated that these charges were, quote, “fully justified.”
What is interesting to note, though, is that there is no known case of any Jews being charged for land transport to the harbours or for being hidden in homes awaiting sailing. There is also no known case of a single Jew left behind on shore because of an inability to pay.
As mentioned, the underground resistance movement had no broad appeal or support from the Danish population. That changed instantly when the crisis of 1943 erupted. It was at the moment of rescuing the Jews that a groundswell of moral and financial support occurred.
Knowing about the rescue and the rescuers still leaves a void in this narrative. What motivated the Danes to act?
Why would a nation spontaneously rise up against the impending roundup of its Jewish population and subvert the intentions of the Nazis? After all, we are talking about a relatively easy-going, modest people who were highly law-abiding and somewhat averse to risk. Yet an estimated 30-40,000 Danes[1] answered the call to become directly and actively involved, while countless thousands supported them indirectly.
In the commentaries of the rescue, there is a proposition that states that the conditions in Denmark were perfect and unique when compared to other occupied countries:
– There was a relatively small Jewish population, around 7,600
– A safe, friendly, neutral country existed nearby
– The German occupation of Denmark was less harsh and not as pervasive as it was in other occupied European countries
– There was the strange agenda of the occupying Germans, who refrained from prosecuting the roundup too vigorously.
This statement insinuates that it was the easiest of all escapes possible when compared to the plight of other European Jews. There is certainly much truth regarding the elements of the proposition, although the insinuation is blatantly false. It was a dangerous and complicated rescue. Many people died or were wounded during the escape, and those captured faced severe consequences.
In no way whatsoever did German connivance, if indeed it did exist, diminish what was achieved during the rescue. Amongst the Danes, Jews and non-Jews alike, no one could have known that German intentions were anything but malicious and that the perceived danger was anything but real.
But these propositions ignore the fact that the Danes had another option. In fact, a more viable one. They could have done nothing. They could have done nothing.
They could have played it safe, not taken the risk, and silently let the Germans do what they did in every other country they invaded, which was to transport the Jews to death camps. But the Danes did react and were resolved not to let it happen in Denmark. It was, in the most simplistic of terms, a choice between right and wrong.
As for the notion of a less harsh occupation, 4,000 non-Jewish Danes killed or executed, and 6,000 others sent to concentration camps throughout the five-year occupation, tells us otherwise. For a country with a population of less than 4 million at the time, these numbers are enormous.
So, to go back to the original question, what motivated the Danes to do this has to be viewed in civic and cultural terms.
Danes love democracy. They cherish democratic ideals, ideals that were historically developed and culturally maintained. They cherish the institutions that preserve democracy:
– an elected parliament,
– a non-politicized judiciary
– a free media
– and all the other civic organizations that, daily, reinforce democracy.
The Danish national character of the 1940s was shaped by influences of the Enlightenment and by exceptional, inspirational thinkers and luminaries whose teachings were passed down from generation to generation. The foundation of Danish democracy was the Constitution of 1849 and subsequent amendments, which included a broad range of civil rights applied to all people residing in Denmark.
What the Germans did not understand at all, because it was beyond their cultural grasp, was that when they moved against the Danish Jews, they moved against all Danes. The aktion against Jews was an insult to the Danish people’s highly developed sense of social justice and human rights.
However, there is more to it than that. The Jews were perceived – and this is fundamentally key to understanding the rescue – the Jews were perceived not as Jews, per se, but as fellow Danish countrymen and women and were fully embraced as such. The fact that these fellow citizens followed a different religion was irrelevant.
The Danes were outraged that one segment of the population should be singled out and persecuted. By saving the Jews, the rescuers were saving themselves and their self-esteem.
After three and a half years of feeling impotent under the occupation, underscored by a degree of shame for surrendering so quickly and by a rapidly developing uneasiness with the policy of cooperation, the Danes readily took up the challenge to redeem themselves by defying the occupier. From the Danish perspective, all of humanity was imperilled, and civic-minded Danes would not – could not – allow themselves to stand idly by as disinterested spectators.
Sweden’s position was also complex. Although a neutral country, it freely allied itself economically with Germany by supplying significant quantities of iron ore and industrial goods. It also allowed German troops to cross its soil to Norway.
As for providing a sanctuary for fleeing Jews seeking refuge in the early years of the war, Sweden remained steadfastly and cruelly indifferent.
However, that changed in 1942 when Swedish public pressure forced the authorities to open the border to fleeing Norwegian Jews. By October 1943, when the plight of the Danish Jews became known, Sweden, swayed by internal and external forces, willingly opened its borders.
Sensing that Germany was losing the war, Sweden was no longer concerned with its place in the geopolitical sphere shaped by Nazi Germany. It openly criticized the German action in Denmark and did everything it could to assist in the rescue. It generously provided shelter, jobs, schooling, and financial support to the newly arrived Danish Jews.
In the end, nearly 7,300 Danish Jews escaped to Sweden, accompanied by 686 non-Jewish spouses, plus numerous Czech and German Jews who were in Denmark for agricultural training.
But what of the 464 Jews transported to Theresienstadt? The Danes did not forget these unfortunate people.
The Danish civil service and the Danish Red Cross pressed the Germans to allow delegations to visit and send parcels to the Danish Jewish prisoners. Eventually, the Germans relented. Because of Danish insistence, no Danes, with the exception of one known case, were ever transferred from Theresienstadt to a death camp, although 51 died in captivity.
Further, Swedish nobleman and diplomat Count Folke Bernadotte negotiated the release of the Danish Jews in April 1945, a month before the Red Army liberated Theresienstadt. These prisoners were transported to Sweden in specially marked white buses.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, there has been an insatiable quest to try to understand this calamity in all its dimensions. Amongst many other things, the Holocaust seriously undermined all notions of civilized behaviour. In the morass of this incoherence, there appears to be a need to look for heroes and tenaciously cling to myths. Acts of courage and cowardice, humanity and inhumanity, are often characterized in metaphorical terms of light and dark.
In such a paradigm, Denmark shines brightly. Perhaps we could apply Leonard Cohen’s words here: “There is a crack in everything/That is how the light gets in.” In other words, in the darkness, humans still have the capacity for courage and compassion.
As a cautionary note, there are realities of the events of 1943 that cannot be ignored, lest this story be interpreted as an unblemished romanticized idealization.
While most Danes acted nobly and courageously, truly representing the best of the Danish national character, others betrayed those ideals. There were a number of Danish informers, traitors and exploiters. Some Danes took up arms for the German cause. It is a fact that several thousand Danes fought for the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front.
So, how do we account for such behaviour? In the period 1939 to 1941, it looked like Germany would, indeed, win the war. Some people cast their lot with what they perceived was the winning side. We know that all societies, in times of extreme duress, will produce heroes and saviours. But it will also produce individuals motivated by greed, envy, ignorance, power, or social status. There will always be weaklings and wrong-headed people who will succumb to persuasive ideologies and bow down to demagogues. We can easily see that in current times.
While there were some unsavoury aspects of the rescue, these do not need to be exaggerated either. What we learn from this is that the Danes were real people who exhibited the entire gamut of the human condition, both its virtues and its vices. Decidedly, in Denmark, there were significantly more saints than there were sinners.
To be sure, there was antisemitism in Denmark, but it was contained and localized, and at no time – I wish to emphasize – at no time did it ever take root or gain traction amongst the general population.
While Danish officials made mistakes along the way, there were also many instances of getting things right. A small but important example illustrates this: The Municipality of Copenhagen paid the rent for 97 abandoned Jewish apartments from October 1943 to May 1945 and storage charges for 350 households. Municipal employees also went to the Great Synagogue and removed Torah scrolls and other valuables for safekeeping.
What frames Denmark’s reputation is the humanity and moral courage the Danes exhibited in 1943 to save fellow human beings and the warm welcome they bestowed upon them when they returned in 1945. This sets Denmark apart from other countries in occupied Europe. What the Danes did was heroic and brought enduring honour to their country. It was a case of ordinary people doing extraordinary things under dangerous circumstances. Those Danes who exhibited bravery, daring, improvisation, and audacity are forever inscribed not only in Danish history but also in Jewish history.
If you visit the Yad Vashem website, the Holocaust Remembrance Centre in Jerusalem, you will find the names and countries of origin of those designated as “Righteous among the nations.” These are the non-Jews who took significant risks to save Jews during the Holocaust.
There are 28,217 names honoured to date.
From Denmark, only 22 names appear.
However, if you look more closely, you will see that of the 51 countries listed, only one has an asterisk beside it. And that country is Denmark. If you go to the bottom of the page to find the meaning of the asterisk, you will read the following, and I quote:
“The title of Righteous is awarded to individuals, not to groups. The members of the Danish resistance viewed the rescue operation as a collective act and, therefore, asked Yad Vashem not to recognize resistance members individually. Yad Vashem respected their request, and consequently, the number of Danish Righteous is relatively small.
A tree was planted on the Mount of Remembrance to commemorate the Danish resistance.” Unquote.
I would like to close with another quote, this one attributed to Albert Einstein. It highlights the danger of apathy and underscores that inaction is a form of complicity.
Einstein said, “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”
Thank you.
[1] https://en.natmus.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Editor/natmus/frihedsmuseet/October_1943_The_Rescue_of_the_Danish_Jews_from_Annihilation.pdf Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs P. 18