Norway and Denmark

on the World Today

THREE and a half million Norwegians have only recently arrived upon the international stage and they are still not absolutely certain which they want to be — consequential or rustic. Significance has been thrust upon them and they only half like it; they want the best of both worlds, and their uncertainty punctuates their international behavior. Their early history was tied up in union with Denmark or Sweden, and their life was akin to that of the islanders off western Scotland. Then they came out from under, and in 1814 struck out grimly for their own constitution. In 1905 they achieved independence as a sovereign kingdom.

Since then the Norwegians have struggled against a profound inferiority complex and through a continuing process of increasing self-awareness. They are timorous, anxious not to be involved, carrying their attitude of “no provocation” to the limit, but in spite of a certain nervousness over the burdens of defense they are enthusiastic members of NATO. They know that whatever happens now in Norway, whatever day-to-day decisions are made, will give the shape of her future for a long time ahead.

Denmark throughout her full and liberal history has been used to sovereignty and, where necessary, has compromised with the greater strength of others. The Danes have a far keener sense of humor, are more worldly and more sophisticated than the Norwegians. Denmark is a rich agricultural country where there is always enough to eat and no need to fish the sea or dig into rock in order to live.

Neutrality was wrong

The Second World War broke rudely upon the complacency of both countries; and after a period of confusion and bewilderment, each drew the definite conclusion that neutrality was wrong, though the Danes did so with less certainty. Before this the Norwegians were not much concerned with matters of foreign policy and defense, but the persecutions and tribulations they suffered under the Nazis hardened their hearts and it will be a very long time indeed before they forget their conquerors.

Both countries believe in Scandinavian union on a cultural and practical plane, but in external affairs Denmark, Norway, and Iceland have had to go one way and Sweden and Finland the other. Sweden has no illusions about the Russians, no feeling against the Germans; Denmark and Norway, though members of NATO, have no personal antagonism against the Russians and both hate Germany. This explains why they are not more resolute.

Immediately after the war the Norwegians believed, in common with many others, that Russia, who had behaved correctly in the liberation of north Norway, would coöperate. But they soon woke up to the fact that this was a delusion and decided to throw in their lot with NATO. Denmark followed suit, and from that moment both countries turned their backs on their traditional policy of neutrality.

Norway’s has been the most idealistic changeover. In joining NATO she hopes and believes that the Atlantic community will share other aspects than just that of defense, that it will become a real Atlantic world with a common foreign, economic, and social policy. To the Norwegians the defense aspect is a temporary necessity, a shield behind which the member nations can join closer together. They regret the tendency in other capitals — particularly Washington — to regard NATO as a purely military alliance. There is a risk that if the other members of NATO do not appear to share this ideal, but only pay lip-service to it, the Norwegians may turn against NATO.

In NATO, Denmark feels that she represents one of the smaller nations which can play a big part in smoothing over tricky problems and getting cooperation from the more aggressive powers. By such people as Thorkil Kristensen, chairman of a NATO subcommittee, she seeks It? provide the temper of reasonableness.

Both countries dislike the idea of German rearmament; but Norway heartily fears the consequences while the Danes accept the fact that they need German divisions in Central Europe.

Toward the United States their feelings are naturally friendly and any criticisms spring from the normal sentiments of most poor relations toward a rich uncle and from the expediency of power politics. Toward Great Britain the Danes harbor an affectionate impatience, while the Norwegians feel a real affinity of habit, thought, and political view, and warm gratitude for the kindness shown them during and since the war.

How much defense?

The defense effort in both countries is reaching its limit. Norway brings to NATO the third largest merchant marine in the world — six million tons of it; a good though small air force; and a good army, though the recent effort in the Storting to extend army service from twelve months to eighteen to bring it into line with the other two services was cleverly handled by the Communists and led to a minor political crisis and a call-up situation worse than it was before.

The same dislike of militarism can be exploited in Denmark, where economic difficulties are threatening a cut in defense spending and where many Social Democrats would prefer a reduction in the period of military service to any cuts in social benefits.

Because of Norway’s rugged geographical lineaments and her bare northern frontier with Russia, the Norwegians have the more difficult defense problem. Their armed forces are at their peak but they curl up like hedgehogs at any whisper of bases for NATO aircraft. No one has pressed them on this subject, and the United States and Great Britain have always taken the line that it is entirely up to them to decide, so long as they realize that without such help their defense will suffer.

The recent spy trials have shaken their complacency and shown them the nature of Russian interest. They need to be vigilant; there is plenty of cause for worry that the enemy can and will exploit the old instincts of isolationism, independence, anticlericalism, anti-imperialism.

The home front

It is unnecessary to enlarge on the well-known fact that all Scandinavian countries are highly organized welfare states enjoying a comparatively high standard of living, with powerful trude unions, reasonably smooth labor relationships, and an emphasis on cooperative and communal living. The area is a free labor market, no passports are needed, and further plans include taking joint measures in the tariff field, which they hope will give a liberal example to others.

The Norwegian Labor Government has an absolute majority, having won 77 seats out of 150 in 1953. There is a small, static rump of 8000 members of the Communist Party and no question of the country’s going Communist ; the stronger the Labor Party, the more conservative it becomes.

Denmark has nine political parties and the 1053 elections continued the minority government of the Social Democrats, who won 74 seats out of 179 and depend on the Liberals’ 42 seats for their majority. The Liberals own the Politiken newspapers, with a circulation of 276,528, are energetically pro-NATO, and believe in the right to self-determination of the population of South Slesvig. Denmark’s Communist Party, which holds 8 seats, and the Radical Liberals, with 14, represent the hard core of neutrality against NATO and military expenditure.

Both countries are governed by down-to-earth, praetical, sensible people whose social policy is one of selfhelp and whose foreign policy maintains close connection with the West without desiring it break or avoidance of collaboration with the East. East - West trade is sought because money is short and there is little clear thinking on this subject when it touches the political aspect. The protectionist policy, embargoes, and quantitative restrictions of the United States are unpopular, and the largest part of iheir foreign trade is carried on with the countries in the Organization for European Economic Coöperation.

The breakdown of the DanishSoviet trade talks because Russia demanded delivery of two oil tankers (on the embargo list) was a keen disappointment to a government which, having overspent, is faced with immediate economic difficulties, and which was hoping for an increased trade outlet and an advantage in bargaining with Great Britain.

Denmark is basically a rich country, of necessity liberal in her trade outlook, and, given a chance and some easing of the currency restrictions, she should look forward to a fair economic future. Norway, on the other hand, is economically a poor country of rock, water, and wood. Norwegian shipping is her insurance against poverty, but it is a vulnerable industry at the mercy of world trade conditions. From the sea the Norwegians pull and export millions of tons of fish a year; from the soil they scratch what farming they can; from their forests they cut lumber; and underground they are rehabilitating the mining industry after its wartime neglect.

The Norwegians are building new houses, wide-windowed and colorful, strictly utilitarian, designed for the remarkable northern climate when for eight to nine months it is dark winter. Thanks to the Gulf Stream the fjords in the west and north are never ice-bound but the long darkness has a profound effect on the people and their ability to work.

The Midnight Sun

With the exception of the Eskimos in northwestern Greenland and in the American polar archipelago, no human beings live so far north as those in northern Norway. The Land of the Midnight Sun is fascinating but depressing. The Russians are far too near. Here are the largest percentage of Communists; here the population feel themselves cut off and wide open to attack. It is Norway’s greatest domestic problem and the government has been wise to tackle it through an ambitious North Norway Plan which will concentrate on improving communications, on setting up iron and sleel and other industries to provide another livelihood than fishing, and on bringing the North into line with the South.

In her northern territories, Denmark also has met her obligations. The Faroes enjoy the free and independent status of home rule, while Greenland, whose growing importance in connection with air and meteorological services is not to be underestimated, is administered by the Danish state.

The Danes are true Continentals; gay, active, industrious, sporting, full of humor, they pedal happily all over the road at all ages. They are a highly civilized people, admirably organized and educated, blending in their state a rare combination of individual freedom and collective unity. Theirs is no wild landscape but a countryside which is as carefully cultivated as a pleasant garden. Their culture is more European than Scandinavian, their literature ranging from the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen to the philosophical profundities of Kierkegaard.

Norway’s culture is struggling in conflict between the past and the present, between mystical contact with Nature—the legends and folk songs, myths and fairy tales of their strange mountains and lakes—and the encroaching responsibilities of the present day. Their towns exist on sufferance while Nature grips the rest. The Norwegians are personally modest but nationally braggart; they have little or no sense of humor.

The great sculptor Vigeland’s statues of human beings in eternal contest with Nature have a strength and virility which become the nation, but the reaction against a stern insistence on reality has already begun and every trend of modern art finds its supporters among contemporary artists.

While the “intellectual” composer is poorly represented, the composer who draws his inspiration, from native sources is in the majority. Concert life flourishes and there is hardly a. restaurant, large or small, which does not boast a violinist, a pianist, or an orchestra.

Both countries are guilty of materialism, and some of the intangibles of life have undergone a change for the worse — a consequence of war. Spiritual values are not positively part of life, not something to be warmly felt and debated as they are in Italy, France, India. Divorce is frequent; the church is puritan, nonconformist, and fails to be a living, revitalizing force. The intrinsic spirit of the people seems to come out more truly in their industrial design and handcraft. Silver, porcelain, furniture, textiles, all show the natural good taste of a simplicity which grows from a deeply rooted national romanticism. Through artistic simplification and accent on form and color it seems that these two sturdy nationalities are trying to reach a concentrated expression of spiritual experience.