Web address: www.krigshistorie.net/literature.html

 

Historical Material
- on War Related Matters

mainly regarding the Nordic countries

 

- A small selection of articles and books

(subjectively edited by Arno Mong Daastøl)

 

 

- with information that in some cases shatters what I was told to believe in...
These articles are intended to cast "new" light on "well known" historical events

- for the sake of truth and fairness.
 

"Circumstances cause us to act the way we do. We should always bear this in mind before judging the actions of others. I realized this from the start during World War II.
A personal example is the fact that I grew up in an environment where we knew little or nothing about what was going on in Russia [Soviet Union]. It was all a mystery and everyone who lived there was diabolical. This was not uncommon for many people in the interim between the wars. However on the day Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, the newspapers changed their tune. Compared to our common enemy, Nazism, the Russians were our great allies. Therefore, I feel convinced that any political picture can be changed to suit the needs of the powers that be."

From "Thor Heyerdahl, The Explorer," by Snorre Evensberget. Oslo: J.M. Stenersens Forlag A.S., 1994, page 205-206.
 

---

 

Material not in English will have short descriptions in English
- in order to make some of the information available to an international audience.

---

Material in English

 

Why is Norway of any interest regarding WW I and II?

These factors also doomed Norway, especially vulnerable after her separation from the union with Sweden.

1) The Norwegian merchant fleet saved Britain in its most difficult time - e.g. by carrying 40 % of its oil until 1942. See below under NORTRASHIP.

2) The Norwegian heavy water at Rjukan, Telemark was a prime resource for Germany's development of a nuclear bomb, a bomb that actually was tested before the war's end.

3) But primarily because of Norway's strategic geographical position, making it indispensable :
a) in WW II for a German blockade on Russia in the far north, for instance harbouring the Tirpitz battleship in the northern fjords.
b) in WW I and WW II for a British blockade against Germany  - regarding nuclear fuel, bases along the west coast and the outlet to the Atlantic, and more important with the Atlantic harbour of Narvik providing easy access to Swedish iron ore at Gällivare.
c) in WW I for British supporting bases against Germany - for forging through the Oeresund straits to the Baltic, in order to attack Berlin by a landing on the beaches of Pommeria (cf. the plans of Admiral Fisher, First Lord of the Sea)

Great Britain's chief strategist of maritime blockade against Germany, during WW I and WW II , Lord Hankey, wrote that,

"In the fortress of Europe no section of the whole perimeter was more important in 1939 than the coast of Norway, ... "
(Hankey, 1950, p.70)

As Hitler pointed out in a series of directives[1] directed to prevent English annexation of Norway,

"Der Führer is convinced that Norway is the decisive theatre of war of this war. He therefore demands complete loyalty to all orders concerning a defence of this territory.[2]

External literature on history and world politics
 

A true classic and a mind-buster of a book is Dr. Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope .

(This incomplete copy is scanned by John Turmel. Here is a shorter version scanned by Peter Myers. Note that the text itself is a number of abridged excerpts and cannot be used for exact quotations. Nevertheless, these texts will give an impression of Quigley's ideas.)

For the events leading to WW II, see chapters 12 and 13.

It is, however, obvious from Quigley's text that he generally stuck to the winning parties version of the war and e.g. praised their intelligence and courage etc. (e.g. p.695), and seriously played down the Allied war crimes, both in Europe and in Asia. Quigley is also wrong or on rather thin ice in a number of cases, e.g. in accepting the Hossbach protocol as a trustworthy document (e.g. p.618); in denying Stalin's plans for invading Europe (e.g. p.698); and on the interlude for the war events in Norway, such as the pretext for the Western Powers' Finish operation (p.681), and Quislings' collaboration with Hitler in the preparation for the occupation of Norway.

Dr. Carroll Quigley is best known as Bill Clinton's professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He also taught at Princeton and at Harvard. His 1300 page book "Tragedy and Hope" is unique among other history books in its exposure of the role of International Banking cabal behind-the-scenes in world affairs.

sweetliberty has digitalised a number of odd books under the title "How Wars are Made. BEHIND THE SCENES ".
Many of these books are definitely not politically correct, but well worth a look. Note the German White Book from 1939, and MP. Captain A. H. M. Ramsay's book The Nameless War. Michael Walsh's book Witness to History consists a vast amount of truly astonishing quotes from acknowledged "authorities". His recent book Round One to the Barbarians (2005) is similarly remarkable, in spite of some repetitions etc.

You may also find a number of interesting books at www.conspiracyarchive.com/Links/

WW II - War Guilt

Russell Grenfell: Unconditional Hatred. German War Guilt and the Future of Europe, (Word - PDF) New York: THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY, 1953 (In German: Bedingungsloser Haß),

Amazon review
 

Excerpts:

"The author of this hard-hitting book came from an old English naval family. He served in the Royal Navy for over thirty years, participating in most of the decisive actions of World War I and subsequently helping to direct the Royal Navy Staff College.

Captain Grenfell's books on naval strategy — Sea Power (1941), The Bismarck Episode (1948), Nelson the Sailor (1949), and Main Fleet to Singapore (1951) — are known throughout the English-speaking world for their brilliance and their clarity. They were given top priority by reviewers here and abroad.

This final book — Captain Grenfell died suddenly of unknown causes in 1954 as he was drafting a sequel to it — is a 21-gun broadside on policy rather than strategy; it touches on so many raw nerves, conflicts with so many prejudices and vested interests, that publication has had to take place in our still largely free and uncensored United States. No English publisher will touch it as of the present — nor has any important American reviewer recognized its existence.

Those who are still fighting World War II will not like this book; but those who are tired of the same old black-and-white clichés with regard to Germany will welcome it as a breath of fresh air. Unconditional Hatred will find its readership, despite an almost complete blackout by the press. The present printing includes the final corrections and last-minute additions of Captain Grenfell. "

 

"If the evidence I have set out in the last six chapters is reasonably accurate, it follows that the many thousands of British men and women, including a number of my own friends and acquaintances, who still believe that Germany alone was responsible for the two world wars, which she started deliberately, wickedly, and without provocation or excuse, are gravely mistaken. It is not their fault. To reach anything like a balanced judgment on this subject requires much more historical reading than the ordinary person has time to devote to such a purpose.

We were, moreover, told repeatedly by our leaders during the war years that the Germans had done all this. Mr. Churchill, whose influence in shaping national opinion about the enemy was enormous, kept on saying that they had started both wars, in just those words. According to him, Germany was the one and only aggressor; the world pest. Mr. Churchill seemed to think that if Germany could be utterly

[91]

crushed, the rest of the world could resume its peaceful ways;

...

But the complete and absolute victory of the Anglo/American Allies, the necessary prelude to the intended extirpations, had hardly taken place when it crumbled into dust in their hands. The smashing of the German Reich and war machine did not remove "all our evils," as Mr. Churchill had predicted. No sooner was the German military 'menace' out of the way than the ugly scowling form of a new danger was to be seen standing malevolently in its place. Hostile, militant Russian Communism had moved quickly into

[92]

the spot where Germany had been. Nor was it the only disturber of the Churchillian conception of a peace-loving world kept in a state of turbulence by the Germans. Very soon, militant Communism forced its way to power in China also.

Mr. Churchill's theory that "the twin roots of all our evils" were Nazi tyranny and Prussian militarism was thus brutally disproved almost as soon as these latter were overthrown. Other tyrannies and other militarisms had come into view behind and beyond them. Other tyrannies just as bad, if not worse; other militarisms just as voracious, if not more so. Germany, after all, had been engaged only in recovering what had previously been German and Austrian territories when she was attacked by Britain and France. But after Germany's collapse and occupation, Russia proceeded to extend her sway by a mixture of force and subversion to include countries to which she had no shadow of a claim: to Western Poland, to Rumania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. German aggression (if aggression it was) was succeeded and surpassed by Russian aggression.

The declared aim of President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill to end aggression by destroying the German capacity for it was, in fact, one of the greatest failures in history. Never before, perhaps, have so many aggressions been crowded into so short a time as have taken place in the few years since Germany's defeat: the Russian aggressions in Europe, the aggression by some person or persons unknown which drove the Dutch out of Indonesia, the Indian aggression against Hyderabad, the Chinese aggression against Tibet, the North Korean aggression against South Korea, the French aggression against Germany over the Saar, the Chinese aggression against the United Nations in Korea,

[93]

and probably several others I have overlooked.*  A pretty good score for any similar period of years, and especially those immediately following the hanging of the German "butcher-bird's" corpse on the wire."
[94]

 

"There was no realistic reason for placing any trust in Russia's loyalty as an ally. She was fighting on the same side as Britain only because she had been driven into it by the German attack. In the twenty-two years between 1917 and 1939, she had set no new example to the capitalist world of international trustworthiness and straight dealing. Far from it. That Mr. Churchill, for a quarter of a century the foremost critic among British politicians of Communist Russia, could have been blind to the adverse possibilities of the Yalta proposals, and particularly the bisection of Germany to the Russian advantage, is hardly conceivable.

But if he was not, how did he come to accept

[112]

demands made by Stalin at Yalta which were so violently inconsistent with Britain's declared reason for entering the war with Germany and which, if Mr. Churchill believed what he had preached from 1917 to 1941, were so obviously ominous with future menace to European stability?

[113]

WW II in Norway

King-Hall, Stephen . (1946). Secret History of 1939-1940. "THE NORWEGIAN CAMPAIGN". FROM THE ARCHIVES OF THE FRENCH GENERAL STAFF.
With an Introduction and Notes by Commander Stephen King-Hall, REPORT NO. 5. Published by NATIONAL NEWS-LETTER, London: Chiswick Press.

Stephen William Richard King-Hall, Baron King-Hall of Headley, Cdr. RN. - Rich text  - PDF full version - Scanned by Jarle Johansen, Feb. 2008 -

How the Allied invasion of Norway (and Sweden) was planned and promoted by the French General Staff in March 1940 (before the German invasion in April 1940):
Excerpt from the Introduction:

        "This report enables you to find out what really happened in connection with the Norwegian campaign.

You will learn, may be to your surprise, the British and French Governments planned to invade Norway and seize the ports and aerodromes on her west coast, but that they were so dilatory in their methods that Hitler decided to go there first. ... 

        A word about the documents. They came into my possession long before the end of the war, so I locked them up. They were captured by the Germans in 1940 at the town of La Charite and reproduced with a limited circulation in order to convince the French that "the capacity for action of the Allies did not measure up to the grandeur of the plan and that (these documents) reveal to a staggering extent the incapacity of the Allied politicians and military commanders".

        I am bound to say that this German criticism had substance in 1940. For example, to quote from a document I have not included in this collection, it is hair-raising in retrospect to learn that on March 16th, 1940, General Gamelin in a Most Secret Memorandum, No. 325 Cab/D.N., was outlining plans to tighten up the blockade "in order to force Germany, through a combination of economic pressure and certain military operations, to emerge from her attitude of military expectancy".

        It will be found (when all the records are available)—I have good reasons for saying this—that Mr. Neville Chamberlain was very anxious not to incite Hitler to emerge from his waiting attitude."

Excerpt from Footnote to News-Letter No. 196 (Written in December, 1945)

    “In the light of the documents published in this report Mr. Churchill's remark in his speech in the House of Commons on 11th April, 1940, takes on a new and fuller meaning. He said: "I must declare to the House that I feel we are greatly advantaged by what has occurred, provided we act with increasing and increasing vigour to turn to the utmost profit the strategic blunder into which our mortal enemy has been provoked." (Hansard, col. 749.)

PROVOKED seems in retrospect to have been the operative word!—K-H.

"Britain was planning to occupy Norway" quote from Discovery Channel program War Months (Video) (larger sections: part1 and part2):

"Because of the country's major ports on the North Sea and its supply routes through the Scandinavian Archipelago, Britain was planning to occupy Norway. By the 1st of March 1940, Hitler had realised this and was persuaded that a pre-emptive invasion was essential."

- The program also carried a short interview with Douglas Dodds-Parker who said:

"We were going to occupy Norway, and the Germans beat it to us by two or three days, because we wanted to stop the supply of iron ore to Germany, which was being shipped across to Narvik and then brought down in the inland waters."

Excerpt from the review of Dodds-Parker's book Setting Europe Ablaze, New York Times, 12 Sept. 1983:

Mr. Dodds-Parker was a Member of Parliament from 1945 to 1974 and participated in the Churchill and Eden Governments  ...

Douglas Dodds-Parker was a senior officer in Special Operations Executive. This British unit, acted on Prime Minister Churchill's order, ''set Europe ablaze,'' from 1941 onward, planning, organizing and directing the operations of saboteurs, assassins and resistance fighters across Europe from the English Channel to the Balkans. Mr. Dodds-Parker, an officer in the Grenadier Guards assigned to ''special duties,'' tells the story well. One would wish he had told more, but some of the operations in which S.O.E. was involved will probably remain secret for many more years. Yet he tells a good deal. ...

By the late summer of 1942, the author found himself in charge of Special Operations over most of the Mediterranean front, ''helping to support the revival of freedom from Greece to France and from Italy to Poland.''

Lord Hankey: POLITICS, TRIALS, AND ERRORS (1950) (Chapter IV, on Norway)

An open-hearted and  truly revealing biography by a first rank British diplomat of the WW I and WW II period. Lord Hankey was the main strategist behind the most effective British weapon in both these wars, as it had been during the Napoleonic Wars, the Atlantic blockade. This book "speaks freely where the official Norwegians are dumb".

 

Excerpts regarding the Nuremberg trials and the invasion of Norway:

"...  the British Government began to plan their major offensive in Norway a fortnight before the Germans. ...  The whole burden then of the Tribunal's account of this stage of the Norwegian campaign is to show that the Germans were already planning an act of aggression for which punishment must be meted out. They do not mention any of the evidence that the Allies were doing the same thing at the same time, indeed did so even before the Germans!  ... By the end of the year 1939 the work of planning and pre­paration on both sides was far advanced; but still we find the Tribunal piling up the case against the Germans, while forgetting to consider how far it was conditioned by the Allies.  (pp.71-72)

 

The story of the Norwegian Campaign, as told in the Nurem­berg Judgement, … it is not the whole truth. ... By adding the part of the story that has been omitted at the Trial it has been shown that, from the start of planning to the German invasion, both Great Britain and Germany were keeping more or less level in their plans and preparations. Britain actually started planning a little earlier, … Hitler, however, …, held back as long as he dared. … the Nuremberg Tribunal, by describing only the German side of the campaign, went so grievously astray.

Imagine that the situation had been reversed, that Germany had won the war and had set up such a Tribunal, with the same Charter, to try its enemies: does anyone doubt the result, so far as the Norwegian campaign is concerned? … The operation would have been declared an act of aggression and everyone concerned in it — members of the War Cabinet, Chiefs of Staff, Joint Planning Committees,Admirals, Generals and Air Marshals galore would,would, on the Nuremberg analogy, have beentried, condemned and executed! … Politics and legal Trials of this sort do not mix. They are grievous errors for which we all pay dearly in years of waiting - waiting for a Peace which cannot be born of vengeance but must flow from justice." (pp.78-79)

Comment:
The matter is much worse than what Hankey claims. Hankey forgets that Norway was not a neutral nation in practice, since she had allowed herself to be forced into an economic alliance with Great Britain (blockade, merchant fleet etc), thereby making a Germany invasion and occupation legal according to international law.

T. K. Derry : The Campaign in Norway (1952) HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR. UNITED KINGDOM MILITARY SERIES.

The standard reference work on the Western Powers' Campaign in Norway during April-May 1940.
This book also "speaks freely where the official Norwegians are dumb".

B.H. Liddell Hart, (1970). History of the Second World War, G. P. Putnams Sons, New York.
           CHAPTER 6, THE OVERRUNNING OF NORWAY

This book by probably the most recognised British historian of WW II, again "speaks freely where official Norwegians are dumb". An interesting point is that Hart shows the smallness of the German force which captured Norway, contrary to the Norwegian national myth of overwhelming German power.
 

Russell Grenfell Unconditional Hatred. German War Guilt and the Future of Europe, New York: THE DEVIN-ADAIR COMPANY, 1953 (In German: Bedingungsloser Haß),

"Twin brother to the hatred propaganda is the Innocence Line which the politicians, abetted by 'patriotic' historians and international lawyers, draw through past and present events. Every aggression, act of brigandage, or piece of savagery on the home side of the line is labeled as part of "the great historic processes" of human development or a legitimate act of reprisal or some such saving term. But the same things on the enemy side become monstrous crimes against peace and humanity punishable by death.

To give just one example; it will be remembered what a hullabaloo was made in Britain about the wicked German aggression against Norway in 1940. At Nuremberg in 1946 the German Grand Admiral Raeder was accused of participating in that aggression and was given the fearful sentence of imprisonment for life—that is, he was sentenced to die in prison. But the publication in 1952 of the Official British History of the Norwegian Campaign has revealed the shaming fact that plans had been prepared as early as November 1939 for an Anglo-French invasion of Norway under cover of helping the Finns against the Russians; and those plans were not put into operation only because the Russo-Finnish war came to an unexpectedly early end before all was ready. "

[page 256]

F. William Engdahl : "HALFORD MACKINDER'S  NECESSARY WAR" See also Bill's original without my highlighting.

From the draft of Chapter 11, on the German invasion of Scandinavia and BeNeLux-France in April-June 1940. How Germany was set up by France & Britain, and how Hitler's anglophile fantasies and naive chivalry towards France & Britain, lost him the war already in June 1940.

Engdahl is also author of  the best seller: A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, 1993, republished in German in 2002, and republished in English 2004. Some of Bills' more recent articles on geopolitics and international finance may be found here: www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de See also Bill's own site: www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net

Norden in the European State System a presentation of Einar Maseng's forgotten analysis, by Lars Mjøset, Prof. of Sociology, Oslo, June 2003

THE NYGAARDSVOLD-CABINETS FINEST HOUR by Sven Blindheim, Dag og Tid. Discussion, Tuesday 3. August 2000 p 21.

Svein Blindheim, Brigadier General and former SOE soldier in "Kompani Linge", opposes the self-prasing and official academic version of WW II history in Norway by Prof. Grimnes, Skodvin and their disciples. Collective guilt, bookburning and sliencing has been used, precisely the methods one pretended to combat in WW II. Bleindheim especially opposes the following claim by Grimnes:

"There are heros in history. Each and every period will have to chose its own. In the case of our time I suggest the government of Nygaardsvold in 1940."

Reflections - My own comments (drafts by Arno Mong Daastøl  - amdaastol.com)

Preparations for WW II - Economic Warfare: "Total war" - On Britain's long tradition of warfare against the civilian population, disregarding international treaties.

British Encirclement and Encouragement - The Real Story of Appeasement  
(i.e. British encirclement of France, Czechoslovakia and Russia, and encouragement of Germany's ambitions)

- How Great Britain encouraged the southern and eastward expansion of Germany in order to make it serve as a bulwark against Soviet expansion. This changed when "the Focus group's people" (Churchill, Amery, Duff Cooper etc) took over during the period 1939-1940, since they regarded Germany as a greater threat.

Stalin's ploys against both Germany and the Western powers, as a mirror image of the British plans, are indeed necessary to understand the preparations for WW II - as reported also on recent English TV documentaries.

The role of NORTRASHIP (Norwegian merchant fleet) in the British WW II strategy  (To be greatly revised and expanded)

For obvious reasons, this matter has been left most obscure, since Great Britain forced Norway to take side in the battle during early fall 1939, more than half a year before she was attacked by Germany. This attack was therefore, and for several other reasons, legitimate - in terms of international law.

1905 og deretter 1940 en logisk følge? (in Norwegian)
- Unionsoppløsningen beredte grunnen for okkupasjonen av Norge i 1940.
 ("1905 and 1940 - a logical result. The dissolution of the union prepared the ground for the occupation of Norway in 1940")

Material in Scandinavian

(with commentaries in English)

Modern European History

Verdensdespotiet og havets frihet, ( PDF ) by Prof. of International Law, Herman Harris Aall , Oslo: Nikolai Olsen 1939

("World Despotism and the Freedom of the Seas")

This well documented book discusses Britain's traditional rule of violence over the Seas, and the efforts of the neutral states, especially Scandinavia and the Netherlands, to promote a Rule of Law over the Seas. The book was translated into German as: Weltherrschaft und die Rechtlosigkeit der Meere, Essen: Essener Verlagsanstalt, 1940.   

 

Material by Einar Maseng, Norway's Ambassador to Moscow , 1940 :

Hvem var det som dro Norge inn i krigsulykken  by Einar Maseng, (Nationen, April 1955)

("Who pulled Norway into the disaster of war")  A must read.

Maseng, Einar. (1953). 1905 OG 1940. En leksjon i maktpolitikk. Oslo: Tanum PDF format

("1905 and 1940 - A lecture in Power Politics ")  A must read !!
    How Norwegian politicians divided the Nordic countries and played along as a vassal state of the European Sea power, Britain.

Utsikt over de nordeuropeiske lands utenrikspolitikk i de siste århundrer III (1972)
( "Perspective on the foreign policy of the North-European countries in the last centuries"  - on the period before WW I )

A brilliant manuscript from around 1965 (in Norwegian) by the late diplomat Einar Maseng.
It was meant to be volume 3 in his multivolume masterpiece, but he did not manage to finish it before he died in 1972.

Maseng, Einar. (1964-72) Utsikt over de nord-europeiske staters utenrikspolitikk i de siste århundrer,
Vol. nr 1. (1964). 1700-tallet, Oslo: Tanum
Vol. nr 2. (1967). 1800-tallet. Nasjonalismens rhundre, Oslo: Tanum
Vol. nr 3. (1972). 1900-tallet. Det politiske samarbeid innen Norden opphrer, unpublished manuscript, Oslo

All 3 were republished 2005 by Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. ISBN: 8215009387
(including the formerly unpublished manuscript)

This final manuscript (1972) is about the most fascinating period of all, the years before the cataclysm in 1914, and therefore also about the reasons and preparations for the 2 largest wars in the 20th Century and all of mankind.
(... Today, we are witnessing a somewhat similar situation between the USA and China).

Se also his other books:

Maseng, Einar. (1952) Det kløvde Norden mellom de store stater, Oslo: Tanum
Maseng, Einar. (1953) 1905 og 1940, En leksjon i maktpolitikk, Oslo: Tanum
 

Einar Maseng's works are highly recommended
All Maseng's books and articles are in the geopolitical tradition of land and sea powers.... with a sharp focus on geography, resources, transport and economics. Maseng had a particular eye to Scandinavia and Norway and therefore paid attention to the conflicts between the small vs. big states.

Einar Maseng was educated in an officers school - Krigsskolen - the year of 1904. He left the army in 1917 and became the first Norwegian Delegate in den Haag; then Charge d'Affaires in Santiago de Chile; General Consul in Hamburg, Germany; Norwegian Delegate at the League of Nations in Geneva, Switzerland; and Norwegian Ambassador in Moscow 1939-1941. Maseng was frozen out of the Anglo-American oriented Norwegian establishment after WW II, due to his Continental sympathies - and in spite of his loyalty to the Government. He lived his last years in Uppsala in Sweden.

 

Obituary (15 Nov. 1972) in Norwegian :

Einar Maseng er død

Tidligere sendemann Einar Maseng, Oslo, er død, 92 år gammel.
Einar Maseng ble student i 1899, offiser i 1904 og avsluttet den militære høyskolen i 1907. Han ble innbeordret til armestyrelsen 1909-10 og tok avskjed i 1917. Fra 1922 var han generalkonsul og charge d'affaires i Chile, og i 1925 ble han generalkonsul i Hamburg. Fra 1934 var Maseng Norges faste delegat ved Folkeforbundet i Geneve, og fra 1939 til 1941 var han sendemann i Sovjetunionen.
Maseng var styremedlem i og leder for flere bedrifter og var medlem av flere offentlige kommisjoner.
Sendemann Maseng var ridder av 1. klasse av St. Olavs Orden, og han hadde flere utenlandske ordener.

Da Norge ble en alliert. Einar Maseng prøvde holde Norge nøytralt. Vestalliansen ble hans fall. By Lars Mjøset, Klassekampen, 6 May 2006
("When Norway became an ally. Einar Maseng tried to keep Norway neutral. The Western Alliance became his fall") 

Norden in the European State System a presentation of Einar Maseng's forgotten analysis, by Lars Mjøset, Prof. of Sociology, Oslo, June 2003

Modern Nordic History

Regardless of political or historical sympathies, "the truth must be known".

Few well-known Norwegian authors have had the courage
- to speak and write according to their intelligence and conscience. Among those few free souls I mention these:
Jens Bjørneboe, Johan Scharffenberg, Johan Vogt, CC, Fritjof Frank Gundersen, Egil Ulateig, Kjell Fjørtoft, Hjalmar Marcussen, Sven Erik Dahl, Roar Henriksen.

For articles in Norwegian, the magazine Alternativt Samfunn ("Alternative Society") carries many open-minded and unorthodox articles.

The predecessor of Alternativt Samfunn was Samfundsliv and was founded by Brochmann:
 

Den 9. april - Norge og verdensrevolusjonen, ( PDF ) by B. Dybwad Brochmann, Bergen: Eget forlag, 1940
("April the 9th. Norway and the World Revolution") 

This book is something quite apart from the main stream, and should therefore be of interest not only as a curious point of view, but also as a more "neutral" and non-partisan opinion on the matters in 1940. Brochmann airs extremely clear opinions and takes a strong side for the occupying German force - for reasons that are thoroughly debated in this book. Brochmann crucifies the illegal and unconstitutional actions by the parliament's politicians during the years ahead of the war, and discusses the traditional and unholy alliance between Labour, the State Lutheran Church and the Money Power. He attacks financial capitalism and promotes a moral and productive system. He positions the centre of this outmoded system of privileges in London and debates the efforts of Germany to promote a world revolution in the interests of morality and the labouring man. Brochmann was tried for his opinions after the war, and was sentenced to 3,5 years of imprisonment.

 

Brochmann was the leader of a Christian "revival" party, Samfundspartiet, and representative member of the Norwegian Parliament. Brochmann was a harsh critic of both Marxism and the Capitalist system. At his time, Brochmann was the only representative who refused to receive salary for his work in the Parliament. He defended the Jewish people and was also the only representative who voted against a forced sterilisation of the Romani people.

The material below in short discuss these themes

TV documentaries

www.arno.daastol.com/history/video/
 

"Britain was planning to occupy Norway" quote from a Discovery Channel program War Months (larger sections: part1 and part2) (10, 38 and 18 mb)
 

"Haakon og Maud" - compressed DivX version, part one and part two (xx mb)
("Haakon and Maud")  - Norwegian Television documentary. Shown in Norway 2005 and in Sweden 2006.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND - THE 1930S

Aall, Dr. Herman Harris & Prof. Nils Gjelsvik. (1932). Revolusjonspolitikk og norsk lov  ( Word ) Preface by Knut Hamsun (Nobel Laureate in Literature)
("Revolution Policy and Norwegian Law")

A study of the the relationship between Norwegian revolutionary movements and the Norwegian Constitution, based on a Parliamentary Report on the revolutionary movements (Stortingsinnstilling nr. 184, 1932 )
    This is also an important and well documented study of the policy of the Comintern (the international Communist organisation) and therefore of Stalin's international ambitions, thereby giving crucial background information for the pre-WW II events in Europe and the rest of the world. This makes e.g. F. D. Roosevelt's policy appear as embarrassingly naive, to say the least.
    Regarding of the Norwegian case, the study documents in details how Norwegian politicians, Communists and Labour and the LO trade union federation, were directly subordinated to Moscow orders, also after Labour's so-called breach with Comintern in 1923. The study furthermore documents how the LO and the Labour party were paid huge sums by Moscow to advance revolution in Norway, and make her a Soviet "ally" with Russia (on one occasion alone, one million crowns, or around 30 million US dollars in the year 2007, in a country with only 3 million people).
    This study therefore argues, on the legal basis of the Norwegian Constitution and the Parliament report, that these revolutionaries therefore were traitors, in the service of a foreign power, and should be treated as such. Furthermore, the study criticises the other political parties that they are too submissive to these "Moscow servants".
    This is a part of history that has simply been left out of official Norwegian history writing, and similarly so in the recent "revisionist" book by Lars Borgersrud's "Konspirasjon og kapitulasjon", which only looks at the coup-plans of "the other side", and which were minor in comparison to the Moscow plans.
    To these plans should be added the invasion plans of the USSR against Scandinavia and northern Norway in particular, the so-called operation 'Reindeer' or 'Poro' in Russian, starting in 1932 and rehashed in 1935/36. (See Wikipedia and Axis forum).

 

NORTRASHIP -  The British takeover of the Norwegian merchant fleet during WWI and WW II

- in both wars effectively forcing Norway out of neutrality and into the Western Powers group against Germany.
Britain and France forced Norway to take side in the battle before she was attacked by the Germans.
The specific details of the matter are still obscure, in spite of much historic research.

The Norwegian merchant fleet saved Britain in its most difficult time - e.g. by carrying 40 % of its oil until 1942 when the US joined the war against Germany. Admittedly this was done under pressure from Britain, starting one week after the British declaration of war in Sept. 1939, precisely as during WW I. At the same time, we might say that the merchant fleet doomed Norway, doomed her to be an appendix to the great Sea Powers, the UK and then the US. At present the great offshore resources in the North Sea and in the arctic Barents Sea, serves the same function.

Tonnasjeavtalen mellom Norge og England in 1939. Norge tar første steg inn i den 2. verdenskrig by John Sand
('The tonnage agreement between Norway and Great Britain 1939 -  Norway takes the first step into WW II' )

After declaring war on Germany in Sept. 1939, Britain found herself insufficiently supplied with ships and especially oil tankers, in order to provide for herself. The only country that had a sufficient supply of suitable ships was Norway. By giving in to hard British pressure Norway de facto became an ally of Great Britain against Germany Nov. 20th 1939. This transferred large parts of the huge Norwegian merchant fleet (including 150 oil tankers) to British commando for freight rates half of the going world rates, de facto subsidising British war efforts against Germany. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Halvdan Koht, lied to the German Ambassador, Braer, giving others (the Norwegian Ship-owners' Association) the blame, as he later did in other matters. He further neglected a German warning against extension of the agreement and gave Britain another 10 oil tankers. Inability or unwillingness to fend off British breakages of Norwegian neutrality made the stance on the British side even more obvious.

Norge betaler store bidrag. ('Norway pays large tributes') by John Sand, Nordlandsposten. Onsdag 23 september 1992

This articles fills in the above article on the same issue with some additional information, for instance that the British payment for the ships freights was not to be controlled by the Norwegian Ship-owners but instead were controlled by Britain in remained (in banks accounts) in pound sterling, until after the war. Thereby the British shipping expenses was not counted as import until after the war and the value of the British currency was temporarily protected. A standard reference on the agreement may be found here

My own loose reflections on the role of NORTRASHIP (Norwegian merchant fleet) in the British WW II strategy. To be thoroughly updated.

The Allied provocations and the German attack on Norway

The official report by the Norwegian Parliament ('Storting') on the background for the occupation of Norway: (32 mb)
INNSTILLING fra UNDERSØKELSESKOMMISJONEN AV 1945 - BILAG I  UTGITT AV STORTINGET - OSLO:  H. ASCHEHOUG * CO, (W. NYGAARD), 1947

Innhold:
1. TYSKLANDS PLANER OM OVER-FALL PÅ NORGE
2. KORT OVERSIKT OVER KAMPENE I NORGE VÅREN 1940
3. UTRIKSP0LITIKKEN TIL APRIL 1940
4. ALTMARK-SAKEN

1905-1940: Norge som kasteball mellom stormaktene speech by Major-General Torkel Hovland
("1905-1940: Norway as a shuttlecock between the Great Powers")

Speech in Norwegian for the local history association "Oppegård Historielag", 14 December 2005.
Unfortunately the recording is of bad technical quality.
Before retiring, Hovland was for 16 years in charge of the Norwegian army in Northern Norway, considered one of the most important parts of the European defence sectors.

Hvem var det som dro Norge inn i krigsulykken  by Einar Maseng, Ambassador to Russia (Nationen, April 1955)

("Who pulled Norway into the disaster of war")  A must read.

Den virkelige sammenheng by Johan Scharffenberg, psychologist and head physician - 25. October 1948, Morgenbladet nr. 184
("The real context")
- On the French and British provocations of a German attack on Norway, documented by German and French sources.

Professor Castberg og svenskeutredningen by A. E. Hedem, Reverend (Nationen, 13 March 1962)

("Professor Castberg and the Swedish report")

About the unconstitutional farce trails after the war that violated basic court procedures - intentionally designed to move attention away from the government that was responsible 1935-1940.

9. april og de dannede nordmenn by Av Morten H. Magnus, Oslo (Aftenposten, 1985)

Forspillet før 9. april 1940 og kort om 60 dagers krigen i Nord-Norge  by Astrup Nilssen - the preparations for the invasion - and about the 60 day war in Northern Norway (written by a participant, a war veteran against the invaders in Narvik)

Den Absolutt Nødvendige Krig by John Sand -
('The Absolutely Necessary War')  How the pretence of Norway's continued fight against occupation came about.

Historiker i særklasse - Skodvin og de vanskelige realitetene by John Sand, Folk og Land, nr.2 1998
("A Distinguished Professor of History - Skodvin and the Difficult Realities") Prof. of History, Magne Skodvin's denial of the allied French-British provocations for a German attack on Norway - and their plans for an allied occupation of Norway - the counterevidence.

Professor Skodvin og 2. verdenskrig by John Sand, Morgenbladet, 30th October 1978
("Professor Skodvin and World War 2") 

 Prof. of History, Magne Skodvin's denial of the allied French-British provocations for a German attack on Norway - and their plans for an allied occupation of Norway - the counterevidence.

Norge - en engelsk provins?  by John Sand, Nordlandsposten 31st May 1995
("Norway - an English Province?")
Some events in the British dominance of Norway

Lord Hankeys oppgjør by Johan Scharffenberg, psychologist and head physician - 1950 Morgenbladet nr. 181,
("Lord Hankey's day of reckoning") 
Review of Lord Hankeys memoir : Politics, Trials and Errors. Pen-in-hand. Oxford 1950 - concerning "unconditional surrender" and the 1945 war tribunals.

Norwegian amateurism
 

Vi bør erkjenne vår egen skyld by Johan Scharffenberg, psychologist and head physician  - 9. april 1948 Morgenbladet nr. 184
("We should admit our own guilt")
- On the British provocations of a German attack on Norway, dealing with the background from 1907 and British threats against Norway since 1918.

A must read.

Supplement til en TV-debatt - "Det brukne geværs politikk, Norsk Militært Tidsskrift  nr. 6/90 by John Sand

On the deliberate left wing policy to break down the Norwegian armed defence - until March 1940
 

Norge april 1940 - Om Knut Hamsun's syn på mobiliseringen i aprildagene 1940 - og om fremtredende nordmenns oppfattning i samme sprsml. by John Sand, April 2003
("Norway April 1940 - On  Knut Hamsun's opinion on the mobilisation in April 1940 - and on prominent Norwegians' perception in the same question").
A must read.

John Sand documents the French-British provocations for a German attack on Norway and shows how the military preparedness for war in Norway was close to nil. Furthermore, the same people who had starved the military, turned around for a pointless sacrifice of young men against an overwhelming invader. Finally John Sand shows how the King and Government were forced to go to Great Britain.

Varsla før 9. april  by Olav Riste, professor emeritus, Aftenposten 20th May 2005 (representing the established academic view in Norway)
("The warnings before the 9th of April")

Faghistorisk prostitusjon by Generalmajor Torkel Hovland, Aftenposten, 26th May 2005 Author of General Fleischer
("Professional historist prostitution")

Professor Riste og varslene før 9. april, by John Sand, May 28th 2005
("Professor Riste and the warnings before 9th of April")

The Norwegian capitulation - and the question of legitimacy of the "London-government"

Kapitulasjonene 10. juni 1940, 8. mai 1945 og"Elverumsfullmakten" by Astrup Nilssen (war veteran against the invaders in Narvik)
- the capitulations of 1940 and 1945 and the so-called Elverum authorization (from Parliament to the exile Government)

Jussprofessor i særklasse by John Sand, Folk og Land, april 2003
("A Distinguished Professor of Law") - Prof. of Law, J.B. Andens' denial of the treaty of capitulation 1940 during the trials of the traitors.

Til kamp mot historiefortielse  Aftenposten, 16 March 2002. Torgrim Rolfsen reviews Finn Thrane's book "Vi ville et land som var frelst og fritt" ("Fight the Silencing of History")
Review of Finn Thrane's "We wanted a country that was delivered and free" - the story of the Norwegian National Socialists)

Var det Norge som kapitulerte? Aftenposten, 27 April 2002. Prof. Skodvin responds to Rolfsen above. ("Was it Norway that Capitulated?")

"ELVERUMS-FULLMAKTEN" Hva var nå det?, by John Sand, Oslo: Historisk Forlag, 1999. (Scanned by Astrup Nilssen, December 2003)
Part 1    Part 2    Part 3  (with appendix).

John Sand has here written a scrutinising legal study over the Parliamental so-called "Elverum Authorization", which allegedly transferred full Parliamental authority to the Norwegian Government, which soon after went in exile in London - after having capitulated to the invading German forces.

John Sand has written many articles about the war and many have been printed in the media. Much of it shatters post-war political correctness. His documentation shows how the German attack on Norway in 1940 was provoked by British and French actions, how legal trials against the traitors was a sham protecting "the winners" from further scrutiny regarding fraudulent actions during the war. John Sand's articles are all VERY thoroughly documented.

OKW / WPr.;
(d.v.s. Oberkommando der Wehrmacht og (sannsynligvis) Wehrmacht Propagandaabteilung):

Retningslinjer for opptreden ved personlig kontakt med den norske befolkning.
(Instructions for behaviour, regarding personal contact with the Norwegian population)

Collaboration with the enemy

'Military' Collaboration

The Nazi fight against Norwegian soldiers was aided by Norwegians - who were commended after WW II.

The worst collaboration during the German campaign in April 1940, was punished after the war by promoting e.g. two of the leaders successively to Ministers ('Secretaries') of Law in 1945, in charge of the very same prosecutions against wartime collaborators, due to the fact that they had the "right" party books, those of the Labour Party. Værnes airport among others, was upgraded by 3500 workers in order to make it suited for German bombers and Stukas, who in turn bombed, the towns of Kristiansund, Åndalsnes, Namsos, Steinkjær, Bodø and Narvik. Without Værnes this had been impossible. This is documented in these articles.

Tyskerarbeidet eksemplet Værnes by Truls Røkke
("German works - the example of Værnes airport")

MENINGSLØS KRITIKK, by John Sand, sent to Aftenposten, 4 Mai 2005 - (Same content as above but more thorough)
("Senseless criticism")

General Dietls Redningsmenn by John Sand, sent to Nordlys, 4 Sept. 1999 - ditto
("The Saviours of General Dietl")
 

Economic Collaboration:

Oslo-konsortiets befatning med IG Farben  by Per Gjendem
("The relations of the "Oslo- consortium" with IG Farben")

Per Gjendem shows how the leading business people were except from being tried for treason after WW II, in spite of their crucial importance for the German war machine.

Hvordan kommer Orkla-konsernet fra vår kritiske etterprøving av det utilbørlige samarbeidet med den tyske okkupajonsmakta? by Per Gjendem

("How does the Orkla-company get through our critical evaluation of the inappropriate collaboration with the German occupational force?")

Political Collaboration:

Prestigious Norwegians also did their part in collaboration on a more political scale.

Labour wartime engagement with the enemy and insufficient postwar court proceedings by Per Gjendem
A must read

Einar Gerhardsen (Labour) was an amazing person. He was Norway's social democratic post-war Prime Minister from 1945 until 1965 (with some interuptions).
In 1940 he worked for collaboration with the invading German forces. In 1945 he was among the initiators for merging the Labour Party with the Communist Party. In 1948 he switched once again, and became the leader of the McCarthy campaign in Norway. And do remember that in June 1940, he was an initiator for merging the Labour Party with the nationalist group Fædrelandlaget ('The Patriotic Union') See below.

Kort supplement om EINAR GERHARDSEN by John Sand,
("Short supplement on Einar Gerhardsen") April 2003
Some info on the background of Norway's "national father" after WW II. He had promoted illegitimate activities as a labour rebel and later promoted collaboration with the German occupying force in 1940, "in close co-operation with Germany act in order to secure the Norwegian position in the new Great-German Europe".

Landsfaderen og den brysomme revisjonismen, by Per Gjendem - same theme as above but more extensive

("The father of the nation and the troublesome revisionism")

Trygve Lie was another Labour Party leader, equally an expert in opportunism.

He worked for years for the establishment of a Soviet regime in Norway under the guidance of Comintern, even receiving payment from Moscow for his services. Later he served English interests, e.g. by generously "handing over" parts of the Norwegian merchant fleet to London, at a time when Norway presumably was supposed to be a neutral nation (before 9 April 1940). These services to foreign powers probably earned him the position as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Paal Berg og Kongen by John Sand, Folk og Land, mars 2003
("Paal Berg and the King")
- The general prosecutor and also the leader of the resistance, his request for the King's abdication1940, his collaboration with the occupant forces.
 

Norwegian Political Intrigues - War and Post-War

Statsministerkuppet by Harald Berntsen Dagbladet, 23 March 2007
("The Prime Minister Coup")  The story of Norway's "national father" Einar Gerhardsen, and his trail of deceit against fellow Labour politicians, starting during the war.
Berntsen argues that the government style had its background in the half-syndicalism of the Labour Party's leadership (Martin Tranmæl in particular), and then transformed this into a modern kind of Corporatism.
(Comment: A parallel here is Mussolini's transformation of Syndicalism into Fascism, and Hitler's similar efforts)
 

The (East) Front Fighters:

De norske frontkjemperne - hva litteraturen sier og veien videre, by av Ivo de Figueiredo
("The Norwegian Front Fighters - What the Literature Says and the Road Ahead")

The German Capitulation

Nytt Søkelys på krigsavslutningen, by Per Gjendem

("New Light on the War's End")

Trials - Post-WW II