Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 6th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Putting a name to Norway's Nazis



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 August 2008
REMAINS of an elite SS Alpine unit composed of Norwegian traitors vanquished in the Second World War as the Red Army pursued them have been found in an Arctic bog.
The bones of 100 soldiers belonging to the Norwegian SS Skijäger battalion were found on the Karelia peninsula in Finland.

They were killed by Soviet troops keen on exacting revenge for SS atrocities in Russia. The last stand of the battalion was
one of the more vicious close-quarter fighting actions of the war.

Troops fought with hand grenades, small arms and eventually bayonets as their stand-off with the vastly superior numbers of the Red Army turned into a rout.

Now, three weeks of digging have unearthed a further 23 bodies. Five have been identified by their identity tags and another through the inscription on his wedding ring.

Samples from the other 17 will be sent to a research institute in Bosnia.

About 50,000 Norwegians volunteered to fight with the German occupiers during the Second World War.

They were welcomed into the SS, because Heinrich Himmler decreed them to be Aryans as pure as Germans.

They were recruited in a Europe where many saw the menace from the east as a far greater threat than that posed by Nazi Germany.

"Fight for what you love" was the message on the recruiting posters for the battalion, where the Norwegian SS soldier was displayed as a fearless warrior, protecting his scared "Germanic" family. Dark skies approaching from the east signalled the "communist threat" descending on western Europe.

It was in the summer of 1942 that a Norwegian SS volunteer, Gust Jonassen, had the idea to form a Norwegian ski unit.

The concept was approved, and by September 1942 the first recruits were sent to Sennheim for basic military training. This was completed by about Christmas and troops then transferred to a training ground near Dresden for ski training with the Waffen-SS.

The unit was shipped to Finland shortly afterwards, with duties generally limited to patrols. Jonassen was killed in action before the company was granted home leave in July.

As the Norwegian unit had done well in its baptism of fire, it was ordered to be expanded into a full battalion. The battalion comprised three ski companies and a headquarters company. It was deemed ready for combat by year's end and was transferred to the front in January 1944.

The battle in Karelia on 25 June, 1944, was the single bloodiest day of the war for any of the Norwegian Waffen-SS units.

The men who died fought a rearguard action with the Russians, allowing some of their comrades to get away.

According to an author and former resistance fighter, Svein Blindheim, the encounter at the Kaprolat and Hasselmann hills in northern Karelia was the worst fighting seen by any Norwegian unit.

"In the course of two days in 1944 the ski battalion was almost completely wiped out. The Norwegians were on their own and felt let down by the German division behind them," said Stein Ugelvik Larsen, a professor of government at the University of Bergen.

Prof Larsen heads the Kaprolat Committee, which aims to identify the remains of the Norwegian SS soldiers who died in this part of the Arctic wilderness.





The full article contains 551 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 August 2008 9:59 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Scullion,

Canada 07/08/2008 01:21:22
This unit showers no honour on Norway. Quisling and now this?
The Finns fought heroically and all glory is theirs despite thier defeat by the Soviets.
2

,

07/08/2008 03:20:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Guga II,

Rockall 07/08/2008 04:15:01
#2. Did you forget to take your medication again today?
4

James Donald,

Newbridge 07/08/2008 06:51:08
#3 Guga II,Rockall - This is a strange story for the Chicom troll PostmarkFiftyPhive (or whatever ID he is using now) to comment on.
Usually he sticks to venting his spleen on anyone who dares to criticise the glorious workers paradise.
5

Randomly Blocked Poster, ,

07/08/2008 07:00:15
Nazis who fought the Soviet are scum, the Finns who fought the Soviets are covered in glory. I don't get it. On all sides they were just men fighting, it's what we do.
6

James Donald,

Newbridge 07/08/2008 07:52:57
#1 Scullion,Canada 07/08/2008 - "The Finns fought heroically and all glory is theirs despite thier defeat by the Soviets" - Perhaps you haven't heard of the Finnish SS Battalion that fought on the Eastern Front. Do they share in the "glory" too?
7

123456789,

07/08/2008 07:54:08
I may have mis read this(my eyes are still struggling to focus with being up so early) but, are "finns" not people from Finland? I read this as being a story about Norwegian soldiers fighting in Finland.
8

The Daleks,

Longmen 07/08/2008 08:30:46
In what way were these Norwegians "traitors"?

They were bravely fighting and dying for what they believed in.

Hardly the actions of a traitor.
9

Partan,

Fife 07/08/2008 09:57:17
#8
They were bravely fighting and dying for the country which had invaded their homeland. That would make them traitors to most of their fellow countrymen don't you think?

10

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 07/08/2008 10:30:59
Get the stars out of your eyes. This sort of thing happened all over occupied Europe. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that, if Hitler had managed to invade the UK, there would have been no lack of volunteers to join an SS legionary battalion.

11

Encephalon,

07/08/2008 10:39:16
Contrary to what we are told at school and see in Holywood-most of Europe was "neutral" or actively supported the Nazis during ww2 against the Soviets.

Vichy France
Franco's Spain
Italy
Romania
Slovakia
Finland
Austria
Croatia
Hungary
Plus large numbers of nationalists in the Baltics and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.

Greece Serbia Poland Czechs were honourable exceptions
12

Partan,

Fife 07/08/2008 10:48:01
#10
Weren't there British volunteers to the SS in any case?

I don't think the situation was quite as straightforward for the people of occupied Eastern Europe who were faced with a choice of fighting for one murderous, empire-building ratbag or the other one.
Hitler/Stalin - which choice would be the right one?
13

James Donald,

Newbridge 07/08/2008 10:49:01
The Primary motivation of Norwegian volunteers in the Waffen-SS was anti-Communism and almost all of them fought exclusively on the Eastern Front. There was also a desire amongst some volunteers to help Finland against the Soviet Union as some had already done by volunteering for service in Finland during the Winter War (as indeed some Britons had done including the actor Christopher Lee). Even if Germany had not invaded Norway (which it did primarily to protect its supply of iron ore from Sweden a supply that was threatened by the threat of a Franco-British occupation of Norway), doubtless some (but no where near 50,000) Norwegians would have volunteered for service in the German forces as volunteers did from other neutral countries such a Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and even Iceland.
Regardless of what they did or what they were fighting for, they are now entitled to a decent burial and, if they can be identified, the relatives should be informed(it is entirely possible that some of the deceased even had relatives in the Norwegian resistance).
14

James Donald,

Newbridge 07/08/2008 10:56:15
#12 Partan,Fife - There were a few British "volunteers" in the Waffen-SS in a unit known as the British Free Corps but it was more of a propaganda unit than anything else. At any given time, there were never enough "volunteers" (many were more or less forced to join) to form a single platoon and, with the trouble they caused the Germans, they were probably a net drain on the German war effort. The "British" in the British Free Corps actually included Canadians, Australians, a New Zealander and South Africans as well as native Brits.
15

Partan,

Fife 07/08/2008 11:05:48
13/14 James.
Thanks for that. What sources have you used for that info? Might be interested in reading it myself.
16

James Donald,

Newbridge 07/08/2008 11:14:49
#15 Partan,Fife - "The Patriotic Traitors" by David Littlejohn (a former librarian from Arbroath) is a good source of information on Axis volunteers but it is long out of print (there should be some copies in the library system though).
The best source of information on the British Free Corps is a book by a British Officer Adrian Weale entitled "Renegades" (out of print also but still available on Amazon). This book also has details of the Free Indian Legion of Chandras Bose, a unit of volunteers from Indian Army POWs recruited to fight the British for Indian independence.
17

Itchy,

07/08/2008 12:34:00
"the Finns who fought the Soviets are covered in glory."

Finland was, and still is, a free and tiny country. That is why they deserve glory for fighting the genocidal Soviet Union.
18

The Daleks,

Longmen 07/08/2008 12:35:59
#9

They believed they were fighting and dying to save Western civilisation, including their own country, rather than fighting for Germany, as such.

That makes them patriots in my book.

19

Partan,

Fife 07/08/2008 13:18:27
#18
I can see your point. Although, as I said, I don't think that most of their compatriots saw it that way. I know things are rarely black and white, which is what I was trying to say at #12.
Being from Fife I've met a number of Poles who fought alongside the allies, but I also met one who drove a panzer into the Soviet Union. I think I understood the choice he and many others were faced with.
20

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

07/08/2008 14:01:33
Atrocities were committed by ALL sides during WW2, however - "Tothe Victor the Spoils"

IMHO the Waffen SS fighting man would easily give some of today's Elite Soldiers a run for their money.

They introduced the concept of an emphasis on a units greater coherence by making the command structure more flexible, so that an SS Mann (Private) could speak to an, for instance, GruppenFuhrer (General) in the same easy manner that he spoke to his peers.

No parade-ground bull shi-ite that the Allied Armies liked from the rank and file.

They also introduced the concept on a mass scale of the usage of Camoflage in various formats.

Despite the record of some of their number I salute them. Damn good soldiers at the end of ANY day . . .
21

Climate change is a fraud,

07/08/2008 15:12:32
Nazis were the first people to come up with the concept of a European Union.

"Heydrich's plan coincided with a conference organised by the University of Berlin in 1942, entitled "Europaische Wirtshaftgemeinschaft" - the European Economic Community (or EEC).

“THE NAZIS AND FASCISTS WHO FOUNDED THE EUROPEAN UNION
AND THEIR INFLUENCE TODAY”

Walter Hallstein, the first European Commission president was a Nazi Leadership Officer.

http://www.newalliance.org.uk/nazieu.htm


The Charlemagne Prize was created by the Nazis.

"The Charlemagne Prize is a citizens' prize for distinguished service on behalf of european unification."

Recent recipients include: Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, Bill Clinton




22

Ben More,

Edinburgh 07/08/2008 17:26:21
No surprise to note that Mr.James Donald of Corstorphine/ Newbridge is the ranking expert on this thread. The man is certainly learned in these matters--an authority on most things German, with a particular focus on and interest in the years between 1933 and 1945.
23

57Nomad,

07/08/2008 18:44:39
#5 rpb

rpb said:

"Nazis who fought the Soviet are scum, the Finns who fought the Soviets are covered in glory. I don't get it. On all sides they were just men fighting, it's what we do."

That they both fought the Nazis, so they share that in common. The difference is that the Finns were invaded by Russia and the Nazis invaded Russia. I think thats where the difference lies.
24

James Donald,

Newbridge 07/08/2008 19:53:20
#23 57Nomad - The Finns also invaded the Soviet Union in what they call the continuation war i.e. as part of the German-led attack in June, 1941.
25

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 07/08/2008 20:40:24
Interesting comments. The Charlemagne Prize was good as the first German reich was the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne.

I reckon the EU is the fourth reich. Feel free to disagree.

There always seems to be a shock, horror response to the SS. There were two branches of it, political and military. The Waffen SS was the military branch and consisted of ordinary soldiers. Sturm Schutz means storm protection and Waffen means weapons.

The Waffen SS were the attacking armed guards. There were also white Russians in the Waffen SS, which had a few foreign legions, so to speak, active in the combined anti Bolshevik struggle which Hitler advocated in Mein Kampf.

I'm not so sure that the Norwegians should be so quick to condemn the motives of the dead men in the article before identifying them and learning more about them.

As the
26

Vasya,

07/08/2008 22:21:09
#17 and #23
What are you are talking about???
Finland became independent FIRST time in its hystory only because of Soviet Union and Lenin personally in 1918. Lenin gave to Finland even more than they deserved but this guy gave half of coubtry for the power. Learn hystory first and study maps of Piters the Great (who stormed SWEDISH Vyborg) time. Modern border is about the same as it was in 1725. Stalin before Winter war (Soviet-Finnish war 1939-40) offered more than generous territory exchange to move the border from Leningrad (15 kilometers by the way that time - Will you live comfortable in 10 miles from potentially hostile country in, let's say, Manchester?). Finland refused -conseqeunces were the Winter war. Stalin could occupy whole Finland that time but he did not do it. Just moved the border from Leningrad not even to modern state but closer. Finland did not get the lesson. From finnish airfields Nazis bombers attacked Soviet Union in the very first day of German-Soviet stage of WWII. You in Britain has no idea what was in Leningrad in winter 1941/ I can tell you it was hell. Halve of millione people died of starvation. The blockade was 900 days and from north it was blocked by finnish troops.
Bytheway... It is war in Georgia... and news about these.. not on BBC... not on CNN... that's how the brain wash of western people works)))
27

Gere,

Scotland 08/08/2008 13:22:19

All warriors who die in battle deserve to be honoured irrespective of their beliefs, religion or ethnicity.

Remember Alfred Lord Tennyson:

"Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die"

Rest in peace, you died in battle with your weapons, I am sure you were received in Valhalla!
28

James Donald,

Newbridge 08/08/2008 13:27:14
#26 Vasya - This ridiculous nonsense may be the guff that you were fed at school from Soviet-era text books but it is far from the truth. What Stalin offered was an exchange of barren wilderness for good land in Karelia as well as a 30-year lease for a military base in the Hanko Peninsula, an offer known to the Finns as "two pounds of dirt for one pound of gold". Stalin knew this would be unacceptable and had planned to attack anyway.
Stalin could not occupy the whole of Finland because of the feeble performance of the Red Army and only forced a settlement on the Finns because of the weight of their numbers and because the Finns were running low on resources. If it had not been for the fighting prowess of the Finns, coupled with the ineptitude of the Red Army, Finland would have suffered the same fate as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. In the Continuation War, the Finns fought to regain lost territory and that is why they were on the front North on Leningrad. Finland would not have attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 if Stalin had left Finland in peace.
29

James Donald,

Newbridge 08/08/2008 13:31:08
Here is the same story from the English-language version of the Norwegian newspaper Aftenpost:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2575367.ece
30

Vasya,

08/08/2008 18:16:03
#Dear James,
Where am I wrong? Tell me when and for how long indepenedent Finland had existed before 1918))) Was Vyborg taken by Peter the Great from Sweden or not and therefore who is the owner of this city and territories around? What is your opinion? - For Finland in 1939 the territories exchange was better than war or worse?? Who asked peace after the Mannerheim line (have you seen it? - very impressive, believe me) was crashed - Mannerheim or Stalin and why... In terms of geopolitics buffer state like Finland is much better than direct contact with absolutely hostily countries (Finland does this function till now). Estonia, Latvia were never independent before 1918 as well/ To be greatfull all these countries have to worship Lenin for their independence. These two plus Lithuania did not have many hostile to USSR countries - only see, that is why for Stalin it was better to take them than leave them independent like Finland. Simple like this. "ineptitude" and "finnish forsed settlements"))) works good for red-neckes - they like to be impressed
31

James Donald,

Newbridge 08/08/2008 20:21:19
#30 Vasya,08/08/2008 - It is irrelevant whether or not Finland existed as an independant country before 1918; many countries became independant in the wake of WW1 Czechoslovakia and Jugoslavia for example.
Finland posed no threat to the Soviet Union in 1939 and did not see itself as a buffer state for the Soviet Union's benefit. Therefore, it was quite right to resist Soviet agression rather than capitulate to Stalin's demands. In a way, the tough Finnish resistance during the Winter War worked to the Soviet Union's benefit as it exposed the ineptitude of the Red Army before the German attack.
Even during the Continuation War the Red Army was unable to fully vanquish the Finns and Stalin preferred to seek peace on the Northern Front to allow his to focus on the advance into Germany.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania owe more to Germany and Britain for their independance than the odious Lenin - he was only interested in spreading the Bolshevik revolution there and in other states until the Poles thwarted his plans on the Vistula.
All three Baltic states were hostile to the Soviet Union, rightly seeing their huge neighbour as a bully and threat to their independance. Even after WW2 in Europe had ended, these countries still had significant guerilla movements that fought the Soviets.
Save you Russian jingoism for the war against Georgia -I hope the Georgians have the save fighting spirit as the Finns.
32

Vasya,

08/08/2008 23:09:55
Finland cold consider itself as it wished. Finland did do real international politics. For USSR independent Finland was better than a part of USSR. That is real world. Separate (behind Germans backs) peace negotiatins from Finland started - you know when? - very logic answer - after Stalingrad. Not Stalin but Finland started looking for peace.
"Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania owe more to Germany and Britain" Sure... Just one question... Why did not these countries even think about independence even during the WWI till 1917? Please do not tell me strong independence national movement in Latvia or Estonia. The domestic original people were that time a bit higher level than animals in the mening of Germans Barons who owned these lands - no own culture, own elite... Mannerheim was just a regular average rank officer in Szar army. Once again... Lenin wanted buffers from capitalistic superpowers of that time... his army was very weak and he tried to buy even a vision of loyalty to his regime from these newly appeared on the Europian map countries. Their role in history seems to be nothing but buffers))) Cinical but true.
About Georgia... Last night they were really good. I am sure you do not undersatnd russian so you cannot know full story. Frankly I thought the story with independent South Osetia was over and georgians would take the capital of the republic. But Osetians were better. Last evening everyone thought it was regular fire exchange but what georgians did with full scale attack with 80% of their force after they proclaimed cease fire - that was good, absolutely unexpected. But osetains did not loose the capital without russian help at all. They lost hundreds or even thousends (such attack was unexpected and civilians were home) but they did NOT loose. All russian morning attempts in Security Concile were blocked by US. Only 14 hours after the attack Russia sent troops and they were just on time. 75% (but not whole!) of the city (about 70000 people) were in geor
33

James Donald,

Newbridge 09/08/2008 07:02:15
#32 Vasya - Finland's war aims were limited and by and large achieved but when appeared that German would not win the victory that seemed likely prior to Stalingrad, Finland sought an exit. Stalin only agreed to peace when it appeared that conquest of Finland would be too costly for what was a peripheral part of the front. Otherwise Finland would have become a "buffer state" in the mould of the countries of the Warsaw Pact i.e. a Communist dictatorship.
National movements began in Estonia and Latvia in the early 19th century (often with the encouragement of the Baltic Germa nobles) and of course Lithuania was a a large country (a Commonwealth in union with Poland) before the 18th century. Your very cynical assessment of these countries as nothing but buffer states has changed not as they are in NATO and the EU, giving them a degree a safety from Russian bullying.
On the subject of Russian bullying, I hope that the situation in Georgia does not degenerate into a full-scale war. A de facto invasion by the Russian forces shows that the bully is flexing his muscles again but the bully often receives a bloody nose.
34

Vasya,

09/08/2008 18:38:27
Dear James, post war prime minister and later president of Finland was KGB agent. It is not a secret anymore. The benefits of being the only capitalistic friend of USSR were enormous for Finland. Eventually main trade with the world from USSR went through Finland. Realtively good-quality goods in USSR were from Finland as well. Finland economy flourished due to this friendship. USSR had the hole to the capitalistic world. Should I explain how important it was for USSR to get excess to western technologies. I remember from my childhood huge cable boxes sighned NOKIA in our neiborhood. USSR collaps was really strike for Finland and only fat accumulated for years of beneficial trade helped Finland to boost hi-tech economy. So once again... forget about heroic finish struggle against USSR. They are just incopareble (take a look at the map. Finland as independent state existed only because USSR wanted them exist as independent. But it was not colony. Russia is not emire in classical way. Estonia and other Baltic states, Ukrain, Georgia in Soviet time lived much better than Russia even in Moscow. After socialistic collaps we had about 15 billion debts to our "colonies or sattelite" how they were called in West. Tell me how much UK paid to India after independence in 1947???
35

James Donald,

Newbridge 11/08/2008 09:49:45
#34 Vasya - Your contention that the Soviet Union allowed Finland to remain free at the close of WW2 because it suited its own purpose is nonsense. Finland fought the Red Army to a virtual standstill at the battle of Tali-Ihantala (should be easy for you to get the DVD of the film from Finland)and it is the courage and fighting skill of her soldiers that kept the country free not the good will of Stalin. Stalin would have occupied Finland like he did most of Eastern Europe but conquest proved too costly and too much of a diversion from the main goal of the defeat of Nazi Germany. If anyone should "forget" anything it is you - forget the "fairy stories" of the glorious Soviet motherland.
I have spoken to several Finnish WW2 veterans as well as soldiers from the modern era and their view of the situation is very different from your jingoistic rubbish.
Some former Soviet colonies, such as the Baltic states always had a higher standard of living than Russia. The Baltic states in particular have a standard of living much better than Russia and they now have the protection of NATO and EU membership (unlike poor Georgia). They have a problem with former Russian colonists who are unwilling or unable to assimilate (not so much in Lithuania) but as members of the EU and NATO, they know that the Russian bear can only growl at them now and not bite.
36

EWB,

UK 25/08/2008 09:41:52
I have no truck either for the Nazis or the Soviets and both should be roundly condemned.

When the Soviets first invaded Finland, they were allies of Nazi Germany and were supplying raw materials to feed the German war machine right up to the day that Germany launched Operation Barbarossa against the USSR. They only became Britain's allies after June 1941!

As a consequence of the notorious Non-Aggression Pact, signed on 24th August 1939, Germany and the USSR gave themselves free rein to carve up eastern Europe. They divided Poland and the Baltic States amongst themselves and the Polish officers who were murdered at Katyn were killed by the Soviets, not the Nazis.

In 1990, while Gorbachov allowed the east European states their freedom, he was loth to let go of the Baltic States, which the USSR annexed in 1945 claiming that, unlike Poland and Hungary, they were part of the USSR. Russia has never given back those parts of Finland that they captured during World War 2, both to the NW of St Petersburg and the northern territory that gave the Finns access to the Arctic Ocean.

As to which occupied countries provided SS troops, let's not forget that most did, especially Croatia whose Ustashe outdid the German SS in its atrocities to Serbs and Jews, or that the Bosnians provided an SS regiment of Muslims.

The plight of those populations in eastern Europe under Soviet occupation during and after World War 2 was every bit as awful as what other occupied countries suffered under the Nazis.




 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.