Humanities desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

Listening to BBC radio broadcasts in Denmark during the Nazi occupation

I would like to please ask the users if during the Nazi occupation of Denmark it was permitted or forbidden for the Danes to listen to the BBC radio broadcasts? Can you please also add the sources for your answer. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was strictly forbidden to all those under Nazi occupation, not just the Danes. "While listening to foreign radio stations was forbidden under threat of punishment in Germany and in German-occupied territories, a large number of people did take the risk of listening to the British broadcasts."[1] "It was forbidden to listen to BBC broadcasts".[2] "Thus, throughout Nazi-occupied Europe, listening to Allied radio stations, for example, was strictly prohibited".[3] Among other things, broadcasts were used to send coded messages to resistance groups. See for example Radio Londres#Coded messages. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Clarityfiend. I have found on the internet a paper by Crisdella Pastera Frederiksen entitled "With the German Army in our midst". In this paper he writes that although listening to the BBC was forbidden in countries under Nazi occupation, Denmark was an exception to this prohibition. He brings as the source of this information an article written by Martin Armbrust which appeared on 28 March 2012 entitled Tidsafgroensning 1940-1945 danmarkshistorien. I would be happy to please have your comments on this. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Pastera's article states BBC was allowed, and it cited Armbrust's article as source. However, there's no specific source in this about the BBC being allowed. Maybe the source "Bennett, Jeremy: British Broadcasting and the Danish Resistance Movement 1940-1945 - A Study of the Wartime Broadcasts of the BBC Danish Service, Cambrigde University Press, 1966" has more about it.Doroletho (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This: "The Nazis punished Norwegian defiance with harsh repres- sion. In Denmark, on the other hand, the Nazis tried to present a showcase of the benevolent treatment awaiting a cooperative people. The Danes were allowed to keep their radios. " from a review of the book above (Review by: Erik Barnouw Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Jun., 1968), pp. 289-291) might have the answer you want. But it's not specific about the BBC being allowed, but radio devices in general. I have no access to Bennett's book right not, but it must have more background information, and maybe cites original sources. Doroletho (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Doroletho Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Danish and found two Danish books saying it was legal but one of them says there is a common myth that it was illegal. Translation of [4]: "never illegal during the occupation to hear the British radio BBC's Danish-language broadcasts". Translation of [5] "remained legal listening to the BBC until the end of the occupation". There was German radio jamming with limited effect. Denmark chose not to resist the German invasion and occupation (except a limited resistance movement) and was treated mildly compared to other occupied countries. See Denmark in World War II. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you PrimeHunter. Since I do not understand Danish, may I please ask you one further question. You write that one of the books states that there is a common myth that it was illegal. Which of the two books wrote this and could you please indicate it in the text in the same way as you did for the other two references. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazi administration of Denmark, which had unconditionally surrendered, was initially quite different from countries like Norway and the Netherlands whose the governments had decamped to London to continue the war. The Germans established Denmark as "a model protectorate" (see Denmark in World War II#Protectorate Government 1940–43). When in 1943 Danes began to realise that the Germans might lose the war, there was widespread civil disorder. The Germans demanded that repressive measures be taken but the Danish government refused. On 29 August 1943, the government was dissolved, Operation Safari disarmed what remained of the Danish armed forces and martial law was imposed.

Although I can't find a reference, it seems likely to me that listening to the BBC was banned with the imposition of martial law in August 1943. In Response to Aggression: Methods of Control and Prosocial Alternatives (pp. 499-500) by Arnold P. Goldstein, Edward G. Carr, William S. Davidson, describes the role of the BBC in inciting disorder during the August 1943 crisis. According to Origins of Modern Europe; Medieval National Consciousness (pp. 409-410) by Abida Shakoor, the Danish Freedom Council which coordinated the Danish resistance with the support of the Special Operations Executive, began to broadcast on the Danish section of the BBC on 31 October 1943. Alansplodge (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish Listening Post, a newsletter published in the US by Danes who were anti-occupation, describes in October 1943 "the paralyzing censorship of press and radio". Alansplodge (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonschaim: The myth claim is in the first part of the sentence in my first link [6]. Translation: "In spite of the common oral tradition's frequent claims of the opposite, it was never illegal during the occupation to hear the British radio BBC's Danish-language broadcasts". I don't know the full story but the Danish media was censored. Maybe the media wasn't allowed to speak about the BBC broadcasts, and many people at the time just assumed it was illegal to listen. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Primehunter Simonschaim (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Reactions to German Occupation: History and Historiography (p. 96) by Carsten Holbraad: "Listening to the BBC was not expressly forbidden, though many Danes thought it was". Alansplodge (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alansplodge Simonschaim (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be dipped. You learn something new every day. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The role was considered the most lucrative foreign service position at the time"

From Nathaniel Hawthorne on the office of US Consul in Liverpool. But what made it so lucrative? Muzzleflash (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on everything: see Consulate of the United States, Liverpool: 'According to Edwin Williams's New York Annual Register, published in 1835, United States Consuls were not paid, but were: "in effect, agents for commerce and seamen. They receive no yearly salaries... and their compensation is derived from the fees which they are allowed by law. [They] are principally occupied in verifying, in various forms, the legality of the trade of the United States with foreign nations, and in relieving and sending home American seamen, who by accident or misfortune are left destitute"'. Alansplodge (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool was a huge port at the time, and the major UK port for trans-Atlantic traffic. Any post which gets any sort of commission from that traffic is better rewarded than a simple government salary. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that ignores the fact that Hawthorne petitioned Congress for a salary, because all his commissions were insufficient for the city's high cost of living. To quote him in the article, a consul cannot possibly live here with a family (unless he secludes himself from society and forgoes all the social advantages of a residence in England). A man might be comfortable with this in a New England village, but not, I assure you, as the representative of America in the greatest commercial city in England. How could he have described it as so lucrative in such a situation? Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having lots of income (lucrative pay) does not make one rich if one expenses exceed that income... --Jayron 32 14:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it may have been "the most lucrative" while still insufficient for gracious living. Alansplodge (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]