Norwegian Nonviolent Resistance to the Nazi Occupation

by A. K. Jameson

Editor’s Preface: We have previously posted a series of articles about World War II, and the nonviolent resistance to German occupation, including a review of George Paxton’s new book on the subject, posted here. As our pacifism editor, Gertjan Cobelens noted in that review, no sooner is nonviolence mentioned than the question is raised, “But what about World War II?” This article, then, continues a series we hope to add to in the near future, demonstrating that nonviolence was very much a mode of European action throughout those war years. JG 

There is a considerable amount of detailed information available about the Norwegian resistance. This Report attempts merely to summarize the facts very briefly and to see what can be deduced from them. Is it possible to conduct nonviolent resistance and if so can such resistance be effective? The answer must obviously depend not only on the quality and amount of force to which resistance is offered, but also on the quality of the people resisting, which again depends on their previous history and the nature of their society at the moment of impact. The first section is, therefore, devoted to this last-mentioned question and subsequent sections to the actual course of the occupation.

Antecedent Conditions 

The area of Norway is slightly larger than that of the British Isles, but it is spread over a length of 1,100 miles from north to south and consists largely of mountains with few and small valleys and long arms of the sea running far inland. Off the mainland lie no fewer than 150,000 islands of all sizes. As a result of this the country supports a population of only three million. Of this, one million is concentrated round Oslo fjord and the rest is scattered widely in small towns of ten to fifty thousand inhabitants and in villages and small isolated groups. Conditions of life are hard for the most part and call for courage, self-reliance, and co-operation within the group. Organized industry is of very recent growth and is located almost entirely round Oslo fjord; agriculture, dairy farming, forestry, fishing, are still the staple occupations employing the majority of the population.

These causes, combined with various historical factors, have resulted in the Norwegians being independent, enduring and resourceful as individuals, and also having a strong community feeling and a sense of social responsibility. There is great social solidarity and a democratic spirit much more pure and strong than is to be found in most other countries. The relations between employers and employed are generally amicable; serious trouble seldom arises, and disputes are settled by arbitration or other peaceful means. The Norwegian has a very great reverence for the law, which he regards as the only basis of an ordered society, and he takes his obligations under it seriously. Practically everyone is a member, not only of a political party, but also of several voluntary organizations for religion, culture, sport, etc. Local self-government is highly developed and plays a more important part in general administration than it does in this country. The level of education is high and the teaching profession is much honoured, teachers being largely chosen as representatives on political and economic councils.

Norway had no war between 1720 and 1940 except for a few small and unimportant episodes during the Napoleonic struggle from 1807 to 1814. Down to 1935 its armed forces were negligible. Peace was to the people as a whole the normal condition. In that year, alarmed at events in Germany, some steps were taken to increase the armed strength, but in only a half-hearted fashion which produced little effect. Vidkun Quisling had, indeed, been trying to introduce Nazi ideas and methods since 1933, but he met with no success. His party, the Nasjonal Samling, at its greatest height never included more than 2% of the population and even under proportional representation it never succeeded in returning a member to the Storting, the national parliament.

It should be noted, however, that although the national attitude was clearly against the violent solution of problems, the membership of organized pacifist movements was very small. I have not been able to get precise figures, but estimates made by the persons named on p. 16 show that there may have been about 500 members of the W.R.I., 100 of a clerical pacifist group, and 1,000 of the Norwegian Peace Society. Perhaps the very fact that most people regarded war as a barbarous and out-of-date method made them think it unnecessary to organize opposition to it.

The Occupation

Special Circumstances: The Nazis had persuaded themselves that the Norwegians, as pure Aryans, would welcome Nazi doctrine and would cooperate in building up the new order. They hoped not to have to fight at all, but if there were any resistance, they expected to crush it within a day or two. Even when they found resistance much stronger than they had expected, so that it cost them two months' hard fighting and quite heavy losses, they still adhered to their original attitude. They emphasized that they came as friends with the sole desire of rescuing Norway from the evils of democracy and initiating them into the glories of the new regime. Special instructions were given to the occupying troops as to their behaviour and everything possible was done not to arouse antagonism. The whole mechanism of Norwegian government was retained unchanged to begin with and the daily life of the people was interfered with as little as possible. The attack that had to be faced by the Norwegians was on the ideological plane, the attempt to substitute the aims and methods of National Socialism for those of democracy, to replace popular election and responsibility to the people by the leadership principle, the king as guardian of the law by the fiihrer as maker of it.

First Stage. June to September, 1940: The Germans very nearly succeeded in their aim of annihilating any attempt at resistance on the day of the invasion, 9 April 1940. Had they captured the king and the members of the government, as they hoped to do, it is probable that armed resistance would have broken down completely. As it was, these escaped by the skin of their teeth and formed a point round which the nation rallied. For a day or two there was uncertainty in the minds of the people, but then resistance came as an instinctive reaction rather than as a thought-out policy, spontaneously and not in response to orders from above. For the authorities were so completely taken by surprise that at first they could do little and it was only when the people of their own accord rallied to them that resistance was organized. What is said to have had more influence than anything else in causing this reaction was Quisling's impudent broadcast on the day of invasion, in which he proclaimed that the legal government had been deposed, that he had become Prime Minister, and called on all to stop further resistance. He had been so utterly discredited as a politician and as an individual that his words aroused violent indignation and made the people firmly determined to have nothing to do with a regime that used such instruments. The Germans realized their mistake and unceremoniously threw him aside four days later.

On 15 April some prominent Norwegians supported by T.U. and commercial organizations, with the consent of the German Commander-in-Chief, set up an Administrative Council to carry on affairs in the occupied territory. It was a temporary expedient to prevent the country from falling into chaos, which would have been an excuse for direct German administration. The Council had no political competence, although in fact it continued to function for six months, long after the fighting had ceased.

Surrender came exactly two months after the first landings, on 9 June after the king and members of the government had withdrawn to England. As we have said above, the Germans allowed things to go on as before with administration of civil affairs entirely in the hands of Norwegians. Employers and workers accepted the situation and carried on for a while without protest, accepting contracts from the German authorities even for military works, for in those first months of the occupation wages were higher than ever before and profits were large. The Trade Unions even allowed the Germans to replace the elected leaders by nominees of their own, fearing, if they resisted, that the organization built up by them over so many years might be altogether destroyed. In effect they withdrew from politics and concerned themselves solely with industrial affairs.

It was only in the political field that the Germans sought to impose their will. On 13 June they summoned the members of the Storting and gave them an ultimatum demanding that they depose the king, dismiss the government, and elect a State Council with full powers. The Storting refused to comply but agreed to write to the king asking him to abdicate voluntarily. He replied on 3 July rejecting the proposal on the ground that the Storting was not a free agent but was acting under compulsion of the occupying authority. The Germans took no immediate action, but on 7 September they renewed the demands . . . Again the Storting refused . . . The Germans then abruptly broke off negotiations and on 25 September they issued a series of decrees.

These deposed the king and removed the government in London, dissolved all political parties except the Nasjonal Samling and confiscated their property, relieved the Administrative Council of its duties and in its place appointed thirteen acting Councillors of State in charge of various government departments all, except three well-known pro-Germans, members of the Nasjonal Samling. The Foreign Office and the Defence Ministry were abolished . . .

Second Stage. October 1940 to September 1941: Although the government was nominally in the hands of the thirteen Norwegian Councillors, each had behind him a German official whose sanction was required for every order other than a routine one, so that in effect Terboven, the Reichs-kommissar, was the real ruler of the country. A new body, the Hird, was set up, equivalent to the German S.S. Corps, which took over more and more of the functions of the Norwegian police until the latter were practically confined to traffic-control and similar routine duties.

The first attack was on the judicial system. The ordinary Courts were brought under the Quisling Minister of Justice, and a People's Court on Nazi lines was set up parallel to the existing ones. Decrees were issued by various Ministries, which were in conflict with the law as it stood and when the Supreme Court objected to these arbitrary proceedings, Terboven said they were not competent to pass on the validity of any orders which he or the Ministers might issue. In consequence of this, all members of the Court resigned in December 1940 and were eventually replaced by incompetent lawyers who were tempted to adhere to Quisling for the sake of the promotion.

During this same period an attempt was made to alter the system of local government by investing Mayors with dictatorial powers and depriving local Councillors of executive functions. In practice, however, these regulations were ignored and the system continued unchanged.

Norwegians are very much addicted to organized sports of all kinds and there is a large number of Sports Associations governed on strictly democratic principles. During this first winter of the occupation the Germans dissolved these and replaced them by others on the leadership principle to which they tried to compel the Norwegians to belong. The latter, however, refused to be dragooned in this way even when the premises and funds of their Associations were confiscated. So completely did they succeed in boycotting the new organizations that the few attempts they made to hold public competitions were a complete fiasco and during the whole of the occupation there were no organized sports meetings.

At the University the Students' Union was dissolved and a new Union on Nazi principles was set up, but this also died as the result of a boycott. One or two lecturers were appointed to teach Nazi doctrine, but as no one attended their classes they resigned before long. A more serious attack was made on the Church by a decree that compelled pastors to reveal information given to them under the seal of the confessional if the police demanded it, the penalty for non-compliance being imprisonment.

In January 1941 a strong protest was lodged with the Minister of Church Affairs signed by all the seven bishops. It pointed out that in Norway the Church is united with the State on the assumption that the latter upholds justice. This, they said, was now doubtful, and they adduced the illegalities, which had resulted in the resignation of the Supreme Court, the decree violating the secrecy of the confessional and the conduct of the Hird, which was indulging unchecked in acts of increasing violence and lawlessness. The Minister's reply was regarded as entirely unsatisfactory and in February the whole correspondence was embodied in a Pastoral Letter, which, in spite of prohibition by the authorities, was read in all churches and distributed as a printed leaflet. No action was taken by the authorities.

During this winter, decrees had also been issued making it compulsory to hang Quisling's portrait in all schools, to teach German instead of English as the second language, to eliminate all English text-books, to revise the teaching of history on Nazi lines, and to make instruction in Nazi doctrine compulsory. This resulted in February 1941, in a widespread strike of teachers, supported by parents and the Church, and in face of this opposition the authorities gave way and either withdrew the obnoxious decrees or allowed them to lapse.

In two other departments of cultural life the Germans were similarly unsuccessful in imposing their ideology. During the summer of 1941 they became involved in quarrels with the doctors and the actors and in both cases they had to withdraw.

During the winter they had been trying to replace officials in central and local government offices by members of the Nasjonal Samling but without much success. In February 1941, a decree was passed making membership a necessary condition of appointment to any government post. This at once produced a protest signed by representatives of twenty-two organizations of government servants, doctors, teachers, and other professions. As no reply was sent, another protest of a more comprehensive nature, embodying all the various illegalities perpetrated up to date, was sent in May, signed on behalf of forty-three organizations, which this time included various Trade Unions. The rank and file of the workers had realized the danger of acquiescing in the proceedings of the occupation authorities and it was owing to pressure from them that the leaders of the Unions joined in the protest.

At last the occupation authorities were compelled to take notice. Terboven summoned all the forty-three signatories to his presence on 18 June and, after a long and angry harangue, had five of the most prominent arrested on the spot and the remainder during the next few days. When he tried to appoint nominees of his own to the posts thus left vacant, the members of the associations resigned en masse rather than accept the new leadership. The National Labour Federation, the largest and most powerful of the workers' organizations, then lodged a further protest against interference in the internal affairs of the Unions.

The German authorities appeared to yield and released all the arrested men, but they succeeded in provoking the workers into striking on 8 September by refusing an increase of wages to compensate for the rise in prices and by cancelling the allowance of milk in the factories. The men's leaders saw the danger of this and induced them to go back on the 10th; but it was too late. A state of emergency had at once been declared. Two of the men's leaders were summarily shot, large numbers of workers as well as journalists and professional men were given long terms of imprisonment, the military and the Gestapo were placed in charge, and terror reigned for a week. Members of the T.U.C. were replaced by Quisling nominees, who were given power to appoint controllers in the Unions, membership of which was made compulsory. Delegate meetings were abolished and election of officials forbidden. Similar measures were taken with the Employers' Federation, which had supported the men's protests.

This ended the second stage.

Third Stage. October 1941 to December 1942: All pretence of collaboration was now at an end. The occupation authorities no longer withdrew when they met with opposition but did their utmost to break it down by violence. On the other hand, the resistance, which had hitherto been largely spontaneous and loosely organized, was tightened up and made much more efficient. Most of the leaders of the underground movement had been arrested during the week of terror, but others not known to the authorities took their places. An elaborate net-work of espionage was created so that the authorities' most secret documents and plans were known all over the country before they could be put into effect. In spite of the confiscation of wireless-sets in the autumn of 1941 the underground press, which was now organized and issued regular printed newspapers, was able to give news and advice received from London. Strategy was co-ordinated, an efficient system for concealing those wanted by the authorities and smuggling them out of the country was evolved. Officials, pastors, teachers, etc. dismissed from their posts were supported with their families by voluntary contributions. Although the entire resistance movement was very largely nonviolent, many of those who escaped to England were specially trained for sabotage and were dropped into Norway by parachute. In the labour field, although there was never any attempt at open opposition except for the abortive strike of September, 1941, there was a good deal of quiet obstruction; machines mysteriously went out of action and work which should have taken weeks was spun out over months.

Nothing of importance happened for some little while. In February 1942, a higher status was given to Quisling's government and he became Minister-President. His aim was to create a corporative state on Mussolini's model, and the first step towards this was the creation of Corporations. He began with that of the teaching profession. In February, decrees were issued reviving those, which had been imposed and then withdrawn in 1941. In addition, the existing Teachers' Association was abolished and a new one set up on Nazi lines under a member of the Hird as Leader, membership of which was to be compulsory on all school teachers. At the same time a new Youth Movement was created on the model of the German one with compulsory membership for all between the ages of 10 and 18 and this was placed under the Labour Service Department.

There were then about 14,000 school teachers in Norway; of these over 12,000 refused to join the new Association and maintained their stand even when they were told that failure to join would be regarded as resignation, with consequent loss of pay and pension rights, and the liability of being drafted into forced labour. The parents supported them, and the schools had to be closed. The teachers were given till 15 March to come to a final decision and practically none accepted the terms. By the end of March 1,300 of them had been arrested and sent to concentration camps, where every effort was made to break their spirit by imposition of severe physical tasks and mental strain. When this proved unavailing, 500 of them were transported in the hold of an ancient steamer to Kirkenes in the extreme north and there subjected to brutal treatment. Still the number of defections was very small and the authorities had to admit defeat. Gradually, between May and October, all those arrested were released.

Meanwhile the schools had reopened on 8 April and it was announced that all teachers who took up work again would be regarded as having automatically joined the new Association and subscriptions would be deducted from their pay. Some preferred not to rejoin and taught privately; the majority resumed work, but only after signing a declaration that they did so in the interests of the children and that they refused to join the Association. The authorities then allowed the matter to drop and the new Association never actually came into being. By August the schools were in full swing again. The victory was obtained partly by the staunch support of the parents who overwhelmed the Education Department with written protests against the decrees.

There were similar protests against the Youth Movement and in these the Church joined on the ground that to compel children to join a movement in which doctrines were taught of which the parents might not approve, was a violation of parental rights. In this respect also the authorities were unsuccessful and the Movement never came into existence.

In order to enforce their protest, the seven bishops on 24 February resigned their administrative functions as officers of the State Church, though retaining their spiritual functions towards the people. The government countered by dismissing the bishops and prohibiting them from exercising any functions at all, spiritual or otherwise, and by arresting the Primus, the bishop of Oslo, and two others. Thereupon on 5 April, 7, 93 per cent of the clergy (797 out of 861) took action similar to that of the bishops. For some months bishops and clergy alike were subjected to harassment of all sorts, interference with their daily life and duties, prosecution for alleged offences, banishment from their homes, or confinement within them.

Quisling's next step was to arrogate to himself the right of the king as supreme bishop to appoint persons in the place of those dismissed, but the only ones he could find willing to accept were without the necessary qualifications. The Church replied by appointing a Provisional Council to carry on the work of the bishops and, although Quisling declared it illegal, he was forced in the end to recognize it and to negotiate with it. By the end of the year the Church was again functioning more or less normally.

Having failed with the Teachers' Corporation, Quisling next tried to institute a Labour Corporation. The workers, however, became aware of his intention before actual orders were issued and forestalled him by resigning from their Unions en masse so that the Corporation, if brought into being, would have represented only a handful of Quisling's supporters. The situation had become so ludicrous that Hitler personally intervened and ordered the whole project of setting up a Corporative State to be abandoned. At the same time, however, 100 of the men's leaders were arrested and the workers were told that, if they did not withdraw their resignations, those arrested would be shot. As the resignations had produced the desired result, the men consented to rejoin.

Although the new tactics of violence failed in their aim of compelling Norway to accept the new order, certain results had been achieved. All voluntary Associations had either been dissolved and their property confiscated or had been placed under Quisling control; press and radio were also under control and there was a considerable amount of infiltration of supporters of Quisling into key-posts in the administrative services. By the end of 1942, moreover, some 100 Norwegians had been executed, 7,000 were in concentration camps, and 1,000 had been deported to Poland.

Fourth Stage. 1943-44: The main struggle in this stage was for the mobilization of manpower. Since July 1941, all ages and both sexes had been liable to undertake work of national importance—which meant in practice construction of fortifications and doing general war work. In the summer of 1942 there had been a strict comb-out of unessential industries and commercial firms. So far, however, there had been little difficulty in getting all the labour required, as wages for work of that sort were higher than elsewhere; but by 1943 they had been reduced to the same low level as others and transfer from one job to another was prohibited without permission. In February 1943, compulsory registration for both men and women was introduced and a target of 75,000 additional workers was fixed. Wholesale opposition was at once declared. Obstructive tactics of various kinds so overwhelmed the authorities that few registrations could be effected, and when the police went with the calling-up notices of those who did register they seldom were able to deliver them; those affected had gone underground. The Oslo Registration Office with records of the entire country was burned down. By the end of summer only 6,000 had been rounded up. Stern measures were then taken. The police were given extra powers and special Courts were instituted in which offences against the labour laws were summarily dealt with and the death penalty was imposed for a large number of them. . . . But still only a handful of those wanted was obtained and the contest went on unceasingly until the Germans were finally defeated.

General Conclusions

From the facts as stated above it will be apparent that the resistance falls into two stages; the first, from 1940 to 1943, was mainly nonviolent, the second, from 1943 till the final withdrawal of the Germans, became increasingly violent, chiefly through the agency of units specially trained in England and parachuted into Norway who carried out extensive sabotage of military objectives. It is the first, largely nonviolent, stage, which is of interest to pacifists.

The champions of resistance in that stage were the teachers and the clergy as a body and some of the more prominent men in other walks of life, journalists, professional men, Trade Union leaders, members of sports clubs and those who carried on the underground movement. The total number was less than 1 per cent of the population and they belonged mostly to the middle class.

The government and municipal services were also affected, but to a smaller degree. The authorities did, indeed, have to abandon their claim that membership of the Nasjonal Samling should be compulsory for all members of those services, but they were successful in imposing many of their practices and in replacing many officers of long standing by supporters of Quisling.

As regards commerce and industry, labour and domestic service, the books so far published say little and it is difficult to get at the facts. The reason is that those books are concerned to emphasize those aspects of the occupation in which the Germans were least successful in realizing their aims. It does seem certain, however, that, at least until 1943, the Germans had little difficulty in getting all the labour and service they required. Ake Fen,2 writing in 1943, says: "On the whole the commercial and industrial life has been carried on along the old original lines, but the capacity is diminished. There is plenty of work, mostly for unprofitable ends—German ends." Up till that year the workers as a whole had acquiesced in the occupation. . . .

There was more opposition when in 1943 the occupation authorities were in difficulties for manual labour and tried to throw their net wider and to rope in sections of society which were not accustomed to it. Then resistance was offered and was successful to a considerable extent. It was, also, the first time that violence was used on a large scale. At no time, however, was any attempt made to paralyse the life of the country by refusal to work or by stoppage of transport. There were great shortages of food, fuel and consumer goods, but conditions never reached the pitch of really acute general hardship.

It is obvious that the Norwegians were a peace-loving people whose instincts were all in favour of non-violence; but few of them were pacifists in the sense of holding a reasoned creed of pacifism based on abstract principles, religious, moral, or of any other nature. Hence when invasion came the great majority had no hesitation in resisting violently; but this violence was for the most part confined to the duly constituted armed forces and, once the army had surrendered, there was practically no civilian armed resistance, no "partisans" or "men of the maquis," such as came into existence in other countries. At first, it is true, there were isolated instances of the murder of German soldiers, but that was soon stopped, partly from expediency perhaps, but also because there was no desire to defeat the Nazis by stooping to their own methods. There was a genuine, widely spread and sustained effort to keep the whole resistance nonviolent in which all sections of society co-operated. The violence which did come later was hardly at all the spontaneous product of the national will but a military technique inculcated in a foreign country. There was a general agreement to treat the Germans nonviolently, but to avoid contact with them as far as possible and to leave them in no doubt about the universal detestation which they inspired. The icy aloofness which they experienced had a depressing effect which undermined their morale. It was practised by all, even by those who were working for them, except the two per cent of Quisling's followers and they were boycotted along with their masters and made to feel the contempt in which they were held by all the rest.

Another thing which differentiates the Norwegian resistance from that in most of the other occupied countries is that it was for the most part openly avowed without any attempt at concealment of those responsible for it. There was, of course, an underground movement, but it was used chiefly for the purpose of keeping the groups of resisters, widely scattered over a large area, in touch with one another, of coordinating effort and of sheltering those on the run from the occupation authorities. It was not used for hatching plots or for carrying out reprisals for acts of oppression.

There was a very remarkable degree of solidarity among all social classes and the greatest fidelity in carrying out the instructions received from the leaders. The high moral tone of the whole movement is clearly shown in the way the black market was run. Producers of foodstuffs were supposed to hand over all their produce to government distributing agencies, but in fact they succeeded in keeping back quite a lot. In contrast to what happened elsewhere, however, this store was sold secretly at prices very little higher than those officially fixed and much of it was bought up by employers for the benefit of their employees and by individuals for maintenance of those in hiding from the authorities. Practically no private profit was made from these transactions and hence the market had not the same demoralizing effects as it had in other occupied countries, and it ceased the moment the occupation was over.

If the question is asked whether the Norwegian experience goes to prove that the technique of nonviolence offers an efficient substitute for violence and can be successful in producing the desired results, the answer would appear to be that it does and can in the moral and ideological realm. That is to say, the occupying authorities completely failed to impose their new order on Church, education, professional, and sporting organizations. These organizations were, with their funds and buildings, taken over by the authorities and handed to the two per cent of the population who collaborated with them; but it was only the material shell which was handed over. As regards the spirit, that was kept untouched and untouchable and to the end Church and schools continued to preach and teach on the same lines as before the occupation. It was a magnificent demonstration of faithfulness to an ideal and of staunchness in face of physical suffering carried out over a period of years during which the occupying authorities seemed to be all-powerful and almost unchallenged in their career of conquest. The moral and physical strain must have been intense and the steadfastness displayed is worthy of the highest praise.

At the same time it must be observed that Norway's success is no guarantee that the method would be equally successful if tried elsewhere or in other circumstances. That success was due largely to the character of the Norwegians, their history and the nature of their social arrangements. Not every nation has precisely their qualities, their innately democratic outlook which ensured solidarity among all classes, nor their combination of strong individualism with capability of close co-operation and willingness to carry out the instructions of a trusted leader. Their high standard of education, their long tradition of freedom from war and of peaceful solution of domestic differences must undoubtedly have helped to keep them nonviolent.

The exact circumstances of the occupation might not recur. The Germans came ostensibly as friends and, after the actual fighting was over, they genuinely did their best to win the Norwegians to the new order by relatively peaceful means. For the first eighteen months such violence as did occur was mainly from Norwegians themselves, Quisling's Hird, and during that period the Germans accepted one defeat after another without retaliation. An invaluable breathing space was thus given to the Norwegian people in which to recover from the first shock of invasion, and the fact that they were able, during that time, successfully to prevent the Germans from imposing their system, strengthened their courage and enabled them better to endure the harder trials, which came later. It is by no means certain that, if extreme measures had been put into operation by the Germans right from the start, the results would have been the same. It should also be remarked that during this same initial period the nation as a whole was being continually heartened and encouraged in resistance by broadcasts from the Norwegian government in London, for wireless sets were not confiscated till autumn 1941. There can be no doubt that these had a very great effect in sustaining morale and again it may be that, without such encouragement, the will to resist might not have been so strong.

It is, however, only in the comparatively limited spheres of Church, schools, professions, and sports and with reference to moral and ideological ends that the Norwegian experience offers any evidence about the power of non-violence. For, while with few exceptions nonviolence was observed by the people as a whole in their individual relations with the Germans, no attempt was made to use it as a mass weapon outside those spheres in order to compel them to withdraw or even to regard the wishes of the Norwegians.

A satisfactory feature of the years of occupation is that they seem to have generated no lasting hate of the Germans. Within a very few months of the end of the occupation Norway was sending generous support in food and clothing to her late enemies, and people who have visited Norway in the last eighteen months say that there is a general desire to forget the past and to go forward to a cooperative future. A certain number of their own war criminals (or persons so designated) have been punished, but here also there is a tendency to let bygones be bygones, to wipe the slate clean and to start afresh.

A NOTE ON THE TEXT: We have used two texts as the basis for this article: Jameson’s Peace News pamphlet, “New Way in Norway”, London: Peace News, 1948 and the version included in the anthology, The Quiet Battle: Writings on the theory and Practice of Nonviolent Revolution, edited by Mulford Q. Sibley, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1963, pp. 157-170. Our text corrects spelling, punctuation, and grammar mistakes. Ellipses indicate breaks in the Peace News pamphlet version.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Alexander Keith Jameson was an English pacifist and regular contributor to Peace News in the 1940s and 50s.

Caption: Norwegian students wore paperclips as a symbol of nonviolent protest to the German occupation; courtesy psdgraphics.com