![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There's something of a debate going on in Norway at the moment, connected with the up-coming release of the film Max Manus. Featured in Aftenposten this weekend. He argues, very badly, that the resistance in Norway has been glorified. And that the heroes of the resistance have been hallowed undeservedly. The argument was poorly made on Fossens part, he should have been more coolly professional. The heroes dislike rocking of their pedestal, particularly when clumsily phrased.
Facts remain that the Norwegian military failed to whitstand the German occupation. The king and government fled, but kept working for the allied forces and Norway. The resistance could not do more than they did for fear of reprisals. What they did resulted in reprisals, and the strategic worth of it is debatable. Certainly, their presence must have boosted morales.
They operated in plain clothes, which by the geneva convention is illegal. Soldiers who fight out of uniform are criminals. By that convention, the occupation was in their right to punish those they got their hands on. Not by that saying that I agree. If we accept that what Milorg did was of worth beyond the symbolic, the fact remains that there are several soldiers deserving of being called heroes. If risking ones life in defence of democracy and freedom is the standard by which heroes are judged, Norwegian soldiers fighting for the Allied forces are heroes, as well. Several times the worthiness of the ones honoured in film and in museums. Several officers of low standing refused to return home, staying to fight for the allied forces under the British. A few of them were wounded, but stayed on. They've been forgotten, and have received low decorations if any. Compared to what the resistance did, these are true war heroes.
Had only Fossen written a decent article, he would had a chance at getting the point across. Now he comes off as vindictive and unprofessional, which I have no doubt he is. Sønstebø's answer is no better.
Facts remain that the Norwegian military failed to whitstand the German occupation. The king and government fled, but kept working for the allied forces and Norway. The resistance could not do more than they did for fear of reprisals. What they did resulted in reprisals, and the strategic worth of it is debatable. Certainly, their presence must have boosted morales.
They operated in plain clothes, which by the geneva convention is illegal. Soldiers who fight out of uniform are criminals. By that convention, the occupation was in their right to punish those they got their hands on. Not by that saying that I agree. If we accept that what Milorg did was of worth beyond the symbolic, the fact remains that there are several soldiers deserving of being called heroes. If risking ones life in defence of democracy and freedom is the standard by which heroes are judged, Norwegian soldiers fighting for the Allied forces are heroes, as well. Several times the worthiness of the ones honoured in film and in museums. Several officers of low standing refused to return home, staying to fight for the allied forces under the British. A few of them were wounded, but stayed on. They've been forgotten, and have received low decorations if any. Compared to what the resistance did, these are true war heroes.
Had only Fossen written a decent article, he would had a chance at getting the point across. Now he comes off as vindictive and unprofessional, which I have no doubt he is. Sønstebø's answer is no better.
