Modstandsfortællinger

Oplæg om Ole Lippmann, af Klaus Carsten Pedersen

Ole Lippmann was a very special person. He possessed a rare combination of courage
and common sense, humour and drive, warmth and wit, social awareness and political
insight. He was born in 1916, and his abilities and character were developed early by
practical training in the family firm, a year in a business school and studies in England in
1935 and the U.S. in 1936-37 – and not least by a return journey in 1937 via Japan, a war-torn China and a Moscow busy with the great purge. Though quite young he had got to see important parts of the world – and had become thoroughly vaccinated against
totalitarian ideologies.

As a matter of course he joined the resistance against the German occupation of
Denmark. He got to know Svend Truelsen, and when Truelsen after 29 August 1943
became head of military intelligence Lippmann joined it. He was chiefly responsible for the
weekly political intelligence summaries sent to England via Sweden. The historian
Hæstrup later regarded them as a main source for the history of the period. In July 1944
he was ordered to London to be trained at Special Forces and at the Danish section of the
Special Operations Executive (SOE).

At the liberation of Denmark 4 May 1945, he had just turned 29. For the last three months
of the war, he had been the top representative in Denmark of the Allied Forces with the
rank of major in the British army. He had been their ‘observer’ in the Freedom Council and
a member of its Command Committee. He had managed to unite the fractured resistance
movement, make it ready for the fight that might come, and at the same time prepare for a peaceful and orderly transition to civilian government after the war.
And when General Dewing as the first British soldier set foot on Danish soil on 5 May, it
was Lippmann who received him at the airport.

Ole Lippmann’s military goal had been reached with the victory of the Allies and the
liberation of Denmark. His security policy goal had been the recognition of Denmark as an ally. That too had been reached, not least due to his own energetic efforts. The next step
was to ensure that Denmark would not slide back into neutrality and isolation, but would
maintain and reinforce her newly won status as allied with primarily the U.K. and the U.S.
When the Iron Curtain, in the words of Churchill, descended over Europe it was essential
that Denmark was solidly anchored in the West. Lippmann had done what he could in the
last months of the war, when his influence was significant. But when the war had been
won, he had done his bit, and other forces took over.

Relieved of the heavy responsibility he had carried he returned to lead the family firm
which he developed into a successful international company. He did not go into politics,
but all his life he maintained a strong humanitarian and security policy engagement. When
Hungary revolted against the Soviet Union in 1956, in a few days he and his friend from
the Freedom Council Dr. Erik Husfeldt organized the Hungary Ambulance. Another
example was his continuing interest in Poland, its people, history, literature and films.
He saw it as a borderland essentially important for the fate of Western Europe. He
established a small factory in Poland for medical products and hospital equipment, and
over the years he provided supplementary training in Denmark for 1.000 Polish doctors,
nurses and engineers.

A third example was a project he had prepared already in late 1944 in discussions with
colleagues in London: The Foreign Policy Society. The official Danish foreign policy by
then had more or less lost its credibility and authority both at home and abroad. Lippmann, who always regarded most formal authorities with a natural skepticism, had concluded that foreign affairs evidently were too important to be left entirely to the politicians and the Foreign Ministry. He was inspired by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in Chatham House in London where topical international and foreign policy questions were subjects to qualified debates in an economically and politically independent forum.

He convinced a number of resistance veterans that Denmark ought to have something
similar, they were joined by a few people from academia and business, and the Danish
Foreign Policy Society was launched at a meeting on 31 October 1946. Its stated purpose
was to stimulate public interest in foreign policy and contribute to a wider understanding of international affairs. Lippmann joined the board of directors and kept his seat for almost 56 years. When the Society turned 50 in 1996, he was made its first honorary member.

During all those years Lippmann followed the activities of the Society with keen interest. A
foundation he chaired donated annually a considerable amount of money. He participated
in many of its meetings and seminars, and when in 1989 the Society planned its first of
many study tours he wished to go – for the destination was Moscow which he hadn’t seen
since 1937. His doctor tried to talk him out of it, he was 73 and had just been fitted with a
pacemaker. But he went anyway, and his heart kept beating steadily for another 13 years.
He very much wanted to also join the long tours in Central Asia in 1993 and the Middle
East in 1994, but he desisted. True to character he wasn’t worried for himself. He worried
about the troubles he would cause his fellow travelers if his heart were to give up so far
from home.

He kept in touch with his Danish and British wartime fellow fighters, and at the memorial
service in Westminster Abbey 50 years after the war, he was one of the two men who
represented the European resistance movements. But he was not one to stay stuck in
history. He kept getting new friends and fellow fighters – and with close friends he would
have long talks, and he might send them books that had moved him and that he wanted to share.

A book one would have liked to have was an autobiography. But he never wrote it, though
many had asked him to. He refused, and probably had his good reasons. When the
historian Knud J. V. Jespersen suggested that he might write a biography, Lippmann
declined. He thought that the history of SOE and the Danish resistance was far more
important than his personal history. SOE archives had become accessible in 1994, and he
convinced Jespersen to write that history. The two volumes were published in 1998 and
2000. They are thorough and very readable, and in volume 2 (The Armed Struggle) the
young Lippmann and his unique effort in the winter and spring of 1945 of course do play a prominent role. But a comprehensive and brilliant biography was published in 2005 after
Lippmann had passed away: A Warrior by Niels Barfoed.

Towards the end of Jespersen’s book, he quotes the anniversary speech on
4 May 1946 by Ole Lippmann (now 30 years old) and he says that those sober evaluations
and admonishments may be seen as a kind of epilogue to his wartime political
assessments on which the British and allied planning for Denmark’s liberation and its
aftermath had been based:

“Did the resistance movement based on its wartime experiences manage to gather all
progressive forces in the Danish people? – Today, one year later, we must accept that it
did not. But that need not make us bitter, disappointed or pessimistic. The ‘four million
freedom fighters’ who welcomed the allied troops in the days after 5 May might of course
have made us believe that the battle was over, and that a new and better world would now
emerge. – But what had been won was just the first round: Expulsion of the Germans and
the right to form a free government again – The next round: Rebuilding Denmark and a
democracy based on the rule of law, a Denmark that understands its position as a member
of the United Nations and understands that we must contribute our share – and first and
foremost understands that our freedom is our most precious possession – that is a task
demanding at least as much effort, as much untiring energy, and as much pure idealism.”

A quote from an interview with Lippman 49 years later (1995) may be a fitting end to this
thumbnail sketch of his life: “I am an incorrigible optimist. From the bottom of my soul,
I am convinced that the world has become a safer place to live in after 1989. God created
order out of chaos, and it seems He is doing it once more. I hate being as old as I am,
for I would like to see the next 10 years. But I admit that I do not care for losers, or put
differently: I don’t want to waste my time on something I don’t believe in. I am
fundamentally a European. If we don’t learn to cooperate, we might as well pack it in. We
will become banana republics at war with each other. We must act as a union but live by
our diversities.”

Ole Lippmann was an inspiring and wonderful friend, and though his health at last began
to fail him, he never turned old. He was 86 when he died in September 2002.

Oplæg om The Danish Resistance during the Second World War, af Niels Wium Olesen

Thank you for the invitation to speak tonight. It is with humility that I, as a Dane,
accepted to speak at an event with representatives of the proud and struggling
Ukrainian people. I wish Ukraine all the best in its fight against an unreasonable
violation of international law and a morally unacceptable attack by Russia. As a
citizen of Denmark, I wish you all the best.

Humility does not only relate to current affairs but also has a lot to do with what I
have been asked to speak about: Denmarks resistance fight during the Second
World War and how it led to the formation of civil society organizations after the
war, including The Danish Foreign Policy Society.

As an historian, I feel obliged to give the critical view on the topic. Not the glossy,
comforting national view.

Everywhere in the world, the cornerstones of the interpretation of national histories
during the Second World War were laid in the years immediately after 1945. As
always, it was the victor who wrote history. The past was interpreted in the light of
the existing power structure in the summer of 1945 and the immediate post-war
years.

This was also the case in Denmark. The great alliance of Great Britain, The United
States and The Soviet Union had won the war and a small nation liberated by British
Forces – and on the island of Bornholm: Soviet Forces – did well in acknowledging
that fact.

Most nations adopted to what the British historian – a specialist in Eastern European
history – Norman Davies in the 1990s called “the Allied scheme of history”. Here he
criticizes the dominant Western narrative of World War II, which he argues is overly
influenced by the victors—mainly the UK, US, and USSR. This framework
marginalizes Eastern Europe’s experiences and downplays Soviet atrocities.

This narrative – the allied scheme of history – has also dominated Danish history of
the Second World War.

Until the 1970s, the dominant historical narrative went like this: All of Denmark
stood united in resistance against the Germans. We had all suffered, fought, and
won back our freedom. It was a unifying story – but one that left out nuances and
uncomfortable truths.

We tend to view the resistance as a single, unified movement. But that’s an
oversimplification. People had very different motives for participating. Some simply
wanted to return to the pre-1940 world. Others saw the resistance as a path – or
rather a shortcut – to major societal change.

So, what drove the resistance fighters? For some, it was patriotism. For others, it
was a matter of dignity, of conscience, of freedom. And for some, it was a chance to
reshape Danish society. It’s important to acknowledge this diversity of motivations.

Because Denmark, as the only German-occupied country in Europe, had a
democratically elected government that chose to continue to govern under German
occupation,
…
the Danish resistance movement came to being under special conditions.

Therefore, it emerged in 1942 on the political, non-democratic extreme right and
the radical left. On the right wing it was among national-conservative groups, some
of whom had had fascist leanings in the 1930s. On the left wing it was the Danish
Communist Party, who had otherwise kept a low profile until Germanys attack on
the Soviet Union in June 1941.

It was not a popular realization in the summer of 1945 that the resistance pioneers
were rooted in non-democratic milieus.

But… the resistance got a much wider foundation when the government resigned in
August 1943 because it refused to cooperate with the occupying power and above
all refused to impose the death penalty for sabotage.

– After the governments resignation, the resistance was characterized by much
wider recruitment. Now also from the political mainstream. In particular, members
of the Conservative Party, members of the Social Democratic Party, and of course
also a large number of politically un-affiliated persons now became members of the
resistance movement.

Or rather: one should actually say: the resistance movements. Movements in plural.

Parts of the resistance movements wanted a communist takeover of power. It was
not a majority in 1945, but the communists were generally better organized and had
a good grip on the network of resistance groups, the infrastructure of the resistance
and where disproportionally strong. The question, of course, is whether the
communists had the power to implement a communist takeover of power. No, they
did not have and not at all under the conditions under which Denmark was
liberated. But the party leadership had intensions that we actually saw played out
during the Prague coup in 1948.

Other parts of the resistance movement held more obscure notions of a national-
conservative revival of Denmark. Less welfare state, less materialism, more
Christianity and more national sacrifice.

A broader mainstream focused on the re -establishment of the constitutional
institutions, democracy, including with a view to placing Denmark in the United
Nations and also with a stronger foreign policy orientation towards the Western
Allied, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Due to a stronger public support for this political mainstream and its connection to
the established political system in Denmark, which also stood strong in liberated
Denmark – and of course because of the British liberation of Denmark – the
democratic system from before the war was relatively peacefully re -established.

It is the unification of the established political system in Denmark with the broad
political mainstream in the resistance movement which led to the establishment of

The Danish Foreign Policy Society, and which was also behind Denmarks
membership of NATO. But if you want to understand the Danish resistance
movement, or resistance movements, more critically, one must be aware of the
deep differences of opinion and the very different motives that existed within the
movement .. or the movements.

The national narrative of history has tried to harmonize these differences. But one
should be aware that there were great differences in the motives for resorting to
resistance, also in Denmark. And in more divided countries such as Belgium and
Greece, it ended in civil war-like conditions.

Denmark was initially, before the Second World War, blessed with being a society
with great cohesion. This made the transition to peaceful conditions after the
Second World War much easier. We must hope that the Ukrainian society has
become stronger and more united in the heroic fight against Russia, but also
recognize that war is such a strong and destructive influence on a society that we
should not judge Ukraine by the same standards as a very lucky and indulged
country like Denmark. I wish Ukraine all the best.

Slava Ukraini.