Demokratiets institusjoner i møte med en nazistisk okkupasjonsmakt: Norge i et komparativt perspektiv

Our studies of the encounter between Norwegian democratic institutions and Nazism has produced a multifaceted picture. Each institution had its own distinct dynamics, determined by the strength and character of Nazi pressure, the personnel setup, the ability for organising collectively as well as the possibilities for recruiting Nazis to replace those who did not want to contribute to the realisation of Nazi policies. Ane I. Støen's and Kjetil Simonsen's studies of Norwegian ministries during the occupation provide several examples of this. Officials in the Ministry of Provisions mustered support from the economic advisors in the German Reichskommissariat in their struggle against attempts by NS to politicise their sector, and through this achieved considerable results. The Germans were not willing to compromise efficiency through employing politically reliable, but less qualified personnel, seeing how this courted chaos and inefficiency. Whereas both in the Ministry of Provisions and also in the Ministry of Justice collective resistance structures were developed, nothing similar existed in the newly established Ministry of the Police, which from the very beginning was dominated by many new employees and powerful pressure from NS and the SS. Opposition thus became fragmented and individual rather than collective. Simonsen's study moreover shows how the bureaucratic structure socialised and disciplined officials who were devoted Nazis. The most radical Nazification initiatives came from institutions and actors outside the central administration, like the German Sipo and the party apparatus of NS, rather than from within the ministries. Øystein Hetland's study of the Norwegian police shows that the police from the very beginning was subject to severe pressure aimed at making it politically reliable. Personnel policy systematically favoured members of NS, along with German and Norwegian police leaders continuously trying to remove opponents within the ranks of the police and reacting to any form of resistance. The police was also thoroughly reorganised along German lines, with the creation of a Norwegian political police (Statspolitiet) as the most important initiative. The result of all this was a divided and cowed police force, under the careful eye of both NS and the German Sipo. This made collective organization difficult and public acts of protest very risky. Consequently, the Norwegian police with few exceptions carried out the orders they were given. Resistance consisted of secret and individual acts. However, given that the German police handled many cases themselves - notably struggle against the resistance movement - the Norwegian police's handling of politically difficult cases remained limited. The importance of pressure and organisation is illustrated again by Terje Emberland's study of Norwegian policemen in the Stutthof camp. Here they managed what they had failed to achieve in Norway: To create a collective front against attempts to make them Nazis and perform police service for the Germans. They managed this because the Germans were not willing to use harsh measures and because they had strong leaders and a solid organisation. They were of course also motivated by the hope of the war coming to an end and the fact that they had been arrested and interned. Men who were in danger of leaving the collective or who were suspected of contemplating accepting German demands were quickly put in their place. Jo Refseth in his study concludes that the police only to a limited degree has used new research in presentations of their own history and that the police's work with their past is «far from finished». Karoline Torkildsen compares the attempts at political reeducation and subsequent arrests of Norwegian teachers with the arrests and deportations of Norwegian Jews. Torkildsen here focuses on fundamental differences between the actions. These findings on the micro level are put into a larger context by Odd-Bjørn Fure. Through comparing the fundamental characteristics of the different occupation regimes in Europe he shows the basic premises and rationales behind the forms or resistance which came to be dominant in each country. Civil resistance became relevant in Norway due to the German wish of winning the majority population for National Socialism, a premise which was not relevant in most countries occupied by Germany. In a situation where the German occupying power and its local helpers largely had secured control over organisations and the state apparatus, civil resistance had as its objective to hamper this from influencing their concrete praxis. The Nazified institutions had to be denied legitimacy and support, thus preventing the development seen in Germany. Nicola Karcher finds Norwegian Schools different from Dutch in that they had an established common identity and attitude, well developed infrastructure and collaboration with the resistance.

Det norske samfunn ble i årene 1940-45 utsatt for dyptgripende nazifiseringsframstøt fra NS og institusjoner i den tyske okkupasjonsmakten. Prosjektet søker å studere reaksjonene på dette framstøt gjennom dyptloddende forskning innen tre utvalgte felt; sk olesektoren, statsadministrasjonen og politiet, som samtidig settes inn i en bredere kontekst. Prosjektet vil legge vekt på at de empiriske undersøkelsene ledsages av en mer bevisst begrepsutvikling og -bruk enn det som har vært vanlig i okkupasjonsforskn ingen til nå. Sentrale begreper for alle de tre feltene er kollaborasjon med underkategorier, og motstand med tyngdepunkt sivil motstand og underkategorien holdningskamp, mens begrepene politisert byråkrati, kämpfende Verwaltung og dobbeltstat er mest rel evante for statsforvaltning og politi. Prosjektet skal dokumentere i hvilken grad reaksjonene på nazifiseringsframstøtene varierte, og undersøke organisatoriske og holdningsmessige forklaringsvariabler for forskjellene. Resultatene skal sammenlignes med situasjonen i Nederland, som er det mest likartede kasus, for å vurdere NS-regimets viktighet og om nazifiseringsforsøk i Norge var lokale tiltak, eller del av en større tysk offensiv. Målet er også å overskride norsk krigshistories tradisjonelt nasjonale ramme. Prosjektet vil samarbeide med forskningsmiljøer i Tyskland og Nederland. Bakgrunnen for prosjektet er den svake stillingen okkupasjonshistorie nå har i norske universitets- og høyskolemiljøer, og mer generelt, det manglende fokus på de komplekse r elasjoner mellom ulike former for motstand og kollaborasjon, og spesielt på hele feltet for den sivile motstand. Prosjektet skal undersøke holdnings- og verdigrunnlaget for reaksjonene på nazifiseringsframstøtene og få fram hva som sto på spill da liberal demokratiske institusjoner ble konfrontert med et kollaborasjonsregime med et totalitært fremmedstyre i ryggen. Spørsmålet om hvilket handlingsrom de ulike aktørene hadde, står sentralt i alle deler av prosjektet.