Beyond the Border: Young Minorities in the Danish-German Borderlands, 1955-1971 9781789201758

Citation preview

Beyond the Border

Beyond the Border Young Minorities in the Danish–German Borderlands, 1955–1971

Tobias Haimin Wung-Sung

berghahn NEW YORK • OXFORD www.berghahnbooks.com

First published in 2019 by Berghahn Books www.berghahnbooks.com © 2019 Tobias Haimin Wung-Sung All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Wung-Sung, Tobias (Tobias Haimin), author. Title: Beyond the border : young minorities in the Danish-German borderlands, 1955-1971 / Tobias Haimin Wung-Sung. Description: New York : Berghahn Books, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018058135 (print) | LCCN 2018061534 (ebook) | ISBN 9781789201758 (ebook) | ISBN 9781789201741 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Germans--Denmark--History--20th century. | Danes--Germany--History--20th century. | Minority youth--Denmark--History--20th century. | Minority youth--Germany--History--20th century. | Denmark--Ethnic relations--History--20th century. | Germany--Ethnic relations--History--20th century. | Borderlands--Denmark--History--20th century. | Borderlands--Germany--History--20th century. | Cold War--Social aspects--Denmark. | Cold War--Social aspects--Germany. Classification: LCC DL142.G4 (ebook) | LCC DL142.G4 W86 2019 (print) | DDC 948.905--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018058135 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78920-174-1 hardback ISBN 978-1-78920-175-8 ebook

For Kathy and Kathy

O Contents List of Illustrations

ix

Acknowledgements xi Notes on Language, Terminology and Translations List of Abbreviations

xiii xv

Introduction 1 Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds: The Minorities during Conflicts and Aftermath, pre-1955

37

Unlikely Cold War Allies: Young People Challenging the Border Struggle and Isolationism, c. 1955–62

73

New Ideas of a United Europe: Generational Differences on Being Danish, German and European, c. 1955–63

98

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning: Generational Differences on the Past and Politics, c. 1960–65

122

Young People Enjoying Life and Having Fun: Life Is Too Good to Fight a National Struggle, c. 1957–67

148

But Who Are We …? Independent Young Voices on Kin–State Relations and Perceptions of the Meanings of Belonging to a National Minority c. 1965–70

177

Chapter 7

Young People of Their Time? Gender, Global Interests and (Non-) Rebellions, c. 1967–71

210

Conclusion

239

Index

245

O Illustrations Figures 0.1 Graduates from Duborg-Skolen, 1955. Courtesy Duborg-Skolen. 2 0.2 Graduates from Duborg-Skolen, 1971. Courtesy Duborg-Skolen.

3

0.3 Cover of Treklangen, 1955. Courtesy Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger (SdU).

4

0.4 Cover of Treklangen, 1970. Courtesy Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger (SdU).

5

1.1 Pro-German plebiscite poster, 1920. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

38

1.2 Pro-Danish plebiscite poster, 1920. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

39

1.3 Danish-minority folk dancing, late 1940s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

49

1.4 Cover of Junge Front, 1945. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig. 55 2.1 German-minority graduates with caps, 1964. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

91

2.2 German-minority graduates without caps, 1962. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

91

3.1 Cover of Front og Bro, 1959. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

111

4.1 Günter Weitling’s article, ‘Die Geschichtslose Generation’, 1961. Courtesy Der Nordschleswiger.

126

x • Illustrations

5.1 Young German minorities playing handball, 1960s. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

153

5.2 Young Danish-minority gymnasts, 1960s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

155

5.3 Danish-minority youths, 1960s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

161

6.1 Danish-minority FSS students, late 1960s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

188

6.2 The German-minority college in Tinglev. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

196

7.1 The former FUF choir, early 1970s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

226

7.2 FUF rock concert flyer, early 1970s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

229

Map 1.1 Map of 1920 Plebiscites. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

40

O Acknowledgements This book has been many years in the making and during this time a number of people and institutions have generously offered me their support and encouragement. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them here. First of all, I would like to thank Professor Steen Bo Frandsen at the University of Southern Denmark and Professor Detlef Siegfried at Copenhagen University for their willingness to read drafts of this book and discuss it with me from the very beginning. I would also like to thank the University of Southern Denmark, in particular former Head of Department, Elisabeth Vestergaard, for excellent research conditions at the Centre for Border Region Studies. I am also especially thankful to former Associate Professor Karen Margrethe Pedersen, Associate Professor Jaume Castan Pinos and Dr Mustafa Khalil Mahmood, who are all my good friends. Second, this book would not exist without the brilliant team at Berghahn Books in New York, especially the amazingly talented editors Chris Chappell, Soyolmaa Lkhagvadorj and Caroline Kuhtz. Thank you so much for your support, kindness and patience. I truly appreciate it. Thanks also to the anonymous reviewers who at various stages have spent their valuable time reading my proposal and manuscript. I am grateful for all your comments, suggestions for improvement, and for your pointing out weaknesses and loose ends. The responsibility of those that remain is – of course – my own. Helping me gaining access to the sources that make this book, I am grateful to Mogens Rostgaard Nissen and his team at the Danishminority library and research unit in Flensburg; to Frank Lubowitz and Hauke Grella from the German minority’s archive in Aabenraa and museum in Sønderborg respectively; and to Professor Hans Schulz Hansen at the Danish national archive in Aabenraa. Thank you all for your interest in my research and for your kind and patient guidance. Most of all, I am thankful to the many people, in particular Siegfried Christiansen and Günter Weitling, who have shared their personal stories with me. In the autumn of 2015, I was fortunate enough to

xii • Acknowledgements

spend three months at the University of Glasgow, where Dr Maud Anne Bracke kindly agreed to read drafts of my work and discuss it with me. I would like to thank her, Professor Lynn Abrams, and the School of History for having me. I also owe thanks to the Augustinus and Oticon foundations for their generous grants, which made the trip possible. I would like to thank my wonderful family, especially my eversupporting parents, Marianne and Haimin Wung-Sung. Thank you also Maria Wung-Sung, Jon Laursen, Ida Christensen, Javier Menendez Gabielles, Ingelise Flensborg, Per Tværgård and Adam Flensborg Tværgård for listening to me babble about this book for years at our weekly family dinners. My dear and beautiful Stephan de Fønss has also had to endure equal measures of listening to tales of the Danish– German borderlands in the 1960s, as have many of my good friends, in particular, Shaun Dickie, Martin Juhl and Frederik Walsted Refshauge. Thank you all of you for putting up with it, and for being in my life. Two historians remain to be thanked. I met Dr Katharine Anne Lerman and Dr Kathryn Castle on the day I enrolled as an undergraduate student of history at London Metropolitan University. While working on this book, I have often thought back on how their enthusiasm for history inspired me to go look for my own. Thank you both for sharing that along with your knowledge, wit and warmth with me. I would like to dedicate this book to you. Tobias Haimin Wung-Sung Sønderborg, Denmark, January 2019

O Notes on Language, Terminology and Translations Studying the Danish–German borderlands and presenting the results in English requires a brief explanation of the choices made regarding language, terminology and translations. In all three respects, the sole aim has been to cause as little confusion as possible. English place names are chosen when available, for example Jutland and Copenhagen. If no common English translation of place names exists, the German names are used for places in Germany, and Danish ones for places in Denmark. The exceptions to this are when names of associations or institutions include the name of a place, for example Flensborg Avis and Jugendclub Tingleff. In such cases the original spelling is retained. As for the name of the region itself, ‘Sleswick’ was a nineteenthcentury English way of spelling the name of the region, which is spelled ‘Slesvig’ in Danish and ‘Schleswig’ in German. Today, however, that spelling is archaic. The German spelling ‘Schleswig’ is now standard in English and it is used throughout the book. The border drawn in 1920 divided the region into a Danish northern and a German southern part. This book refers to these two parts as North Schleswig and South Schleswig, even though the northern part perhaps is better known in English as South Jutland. In this case, for the sake preventing confusion, it has been estimated that North and South Schleswig make the meaning more lucid than South Jutland and South Schleswig. The two national minorities are referred to as the Danish minority and the German minority. The terms ‘German-minded’ and ‘Danishminded’ as well as ‘German North Schleswigers’ and ‘Danish South Schleswigers’ are also used, mostly for the purposes of linguistic variation. All classifications are accepted and used by the people they describe. Whereas more specific definitions of the groups studied could perhaps be desirable, very specialised categorisations would not reflect reality anyway: a sense of national belonging has varied both on

xiv • A Note on Language, Terminology and Translations

the individual level and through time. Furthermore, one or the other group evidently did not form a constant homogenous group of people. Lastly, this book is based mainly on analyses and interpretations of primary sources originally in Danish or German. All translations of these sources are by the author, and every attempt has been made to respect both the original wording as well as English grammar. In order to ensure that references to sources and literature are legible, the original quotes have not been included in the endnotes as is sometimes common in studies of sources in foreign languages. Instead, references to primary sources are as detailed as possible.

O Abbreviations BDN – Bund Deutscher Nordschleswiger

DCBS – Dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig DGF – Dansk Gymnastikforening Flensborg EEC – European Economic Community

EFTA – European Free Trade Association

FDF – Frivilligt Drenge- og Pige-Forbund

FSS – Foreningen af Sydslesvigske Studerende

FUEN – Federal Union of European Nationalities FUF – Flensborg Ungdomsforening KJS – Kreis Junger Schleswiger

NATO – The North Atlantic Treaty Organization SdU – Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger SHZ – Südschleswigsche Heimatzeitug SSF – Sydslesvigsk Forening

SSW – Südschleswigscher Wählerverein UN – United Nations

VSSt – Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten

O Introduction The combination of the words ‘youth’ and ‘the sixties’ suggests more than a specific decade and group of people. In a popular and socalled Western context, it sparks associations of a unique decade and generation; of social and cultural changes and expressive rebellions. It brings to mind images of the young men whose hair got longer and the young women whose skirts got shorter; all the while they questioned the established norms of society and rebelled against the older generation. Youth and the 1960s connects with new fashions, new music, new ideas and new opinions. Youth and the 1960s is also linked to certain, in particular urban, locations: to the Haight-Ashbury district in San Francisco during the Summer of Love in 1967; to Carnaby Street in London; or to the universities across North America and Europe, where young people rioted for influence and change. In the first instance, we do not think of the young people studied in this book: the young people of both the Danish minority in the north of West Germany and the German minority in Southern Denmark, each living on their side of the border cutting through the rural, historical duchy of Schleswig. But a first glance at the sources upon which this book is based, suggests some similarities between minority youths in Schleswig and their Western peers. In the photo of the 1955 graduating class of Duborg-Skolen, the Danish-minority secondary school in Flensburg, for example, all the boys were dressed in white shirts and dark suits and they all had short hair; all the girls wore long white dresses and they all had their hair tied up. Similarly, in the photo of the graduating class of 1962 from Deutsches Gymnasium Nordschleswig, the German-minority secondary school in Aabenraa, all the shorthaired boys were dressed in suits and the girls wore long, light-coloured dresses. But by the early 1970s, the class photos looked different. In 1971 at Duborg-Skolen, only one boy out of eight had short hair, and four had their hair below the shoulders; none of the boys wore a tie; three out of four girls wore miniskirts and all had their

2 • Beyond the Border

hair out. At Deutsches Gymnasium, all the girls wore short dresses, and three boys of eleven had long hair, one to below his shoulders. Issues from different years of Treklangen, a Danish-minority magazine for youths, illustrate the same development. One cover of the magazine from 1955 features a print of the Christian missionary, St Ansgar (ad 801–865), sitting on a beach together with a group of boys. The print was titled ‘St Ansgar talking to Danish boys’. Below the magazine’s headline, the words ‘Home, Homeland, Fatherland’ were written in italics. The cover of a 1970 issue of Treklangen, on the other hand, looks very different. The typeface of the headline has been changed from a traditional cursive to a graphic font, similar to those seen on the covers of contemporaneous rock posters. The slogan ‘Home Homeland Fatherland’ has gone, and replacing the print of the missionary, the cover is decorated with a psychedelic collage of images and illustrations, including the peace symbol, a television set, LPs, a car and the famous silhouette drawing of Che Guevara. Whereas this first look at the sources hints that Danish and German minority youths shared experiences with Western youths in general, young minorities faced a unique set of questions too. Minority youths also had to navigate belonging to a national minority group. They faced questions regarding their national identity, their relationships with the majority populations and with the home nations on the other

Figure 0.1 Graduates from Duborg-Skolen, 1955. Courtesy Duborg-Skolen.

Introduction  •  3

side of the border, issues on which non-minority youths elsewhere did not have to take a stand. This book investigates such young minority experiences in the Danish–German borderlands in the 1960s, focusing in particular on perceptions of national belonging, on the sense of what belonging to a national minority implied, and on the ways in which perceptions of minority identities changed. The book aims to offer a new perspective on two well-established historical scholarships: first, the scholarship on youth in the sixties, which – although it has moved considerably beyond the simplified, popular notions mentioned above – has largely remained focused on experiences of national majorities; second, the scholarship on minority experiences in the Danish–German border region, which has traditionally focused mainly on political developments, leaving transnational connections and contextualisation in the background. This book investigates the idea that young minority experiences did not exist and develop in isolation, and it sheds light on how young minority experiences changed continuously and were affected by influences coming both from within and outside the minority spheres.

Figure 0.2 Graduates from Duborg-Skolen, 1971. Courtesy Duborg-Skolen.

4  •  Beyond the Border

Figure 0.3 Cover of Treklangen, 1955. Courtesy Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger (SdU).

Introduction • 5

Figure 0.4 Cover of Treklangen, 1970. Courtesy Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger (SdU).

6  •  Beyond the Border

At the same time, the book brings to the fore an overlooked group of youths. Focusing on a borderland and on two national minorities adds new voices to the understanding of the period: it brings experiences of national minorities into the broader scholarship on youths in the 1960s, and it challenges the idea that national borders confine cultural, social and political changes. So far, only Andreas Fickers has, very recently, studied the German-speaking community in Belgium – through the prisms of youth and ‘1968’.1 According to Fickers, 1968 in the Germanspeaking community, as well as in Belgium more broadly, was linked closely to language emancipation, and young people were more silent witnesses than actual agents of change themselves.2 Two studies of the Danish–German borderlands, however, suggest that Danish and German minority youth did not share the experience of German-speaking youth in Belgium. Historians Lars Henningsen and Frank Lubowitz have briefly touched upon the topic of minority youth in other contexts. In a study on political developments in South Schleswig, Henningsen refers to a Danish minority meeting in 1960, at which a group of young people distanced themselves from the Danish minority separatism and isolation from the German majority. The youths proclaimed in public that they did not accept ‘being Danish in opposition to being German’.3 In the same edited volume, Frank Lubowitz also argues that young people played a crucial role in improving relations between minority and majority. According to Lubowitz, ‘to a larger extent than the older generations, minority youth in particular entered into a dialogue with the Danish majority and were influenced by the post-war period’.4 Whereas Lubowitz and Henningsen both mention a pioneering role played by young people, neither have this as their primary foci, thus no background, connections or implications of these positions are explored. This book attempts to focus equally on both the Danish and the German minorities. It seeks to compare, contrast and connect the experiences of the two groups in order to develop an understanding of similarities and differences as well as a sense of the ways in which similar ideas and events influenced the lives, ideas and practices on both sides of the Danish–German border. The book thus focuses on both young minority groups at the same time, investigating both groups’ relationships with the same or similar issues, instead of dealing with the two minority experiences separately. Departing from a common topic and investigating it in two contexts is a methodological advantage but also a potential weakness. Taking inspiration from a transnational approach to history, to trace ideas and practices across national boundaries instead of studying the past in

Introduction • 7

national isolation,5 it becomes possible to follow connections between territories and gain awareness of interconnections between people and ideas. On the other hand, as Ann Curthoys warns, the transnational approach can lead to histories too distanced from the people they are about6 and become overly constructed if they include local material only when it resonates with the international debates.7 Similar concerns are raised by Heinz-Gerhard Haupt and Jürgen Kocka, who stress that if histories are too focused on general structures and contexts, they risk losing focus on the perceptions of those people about whom they are written.8 These concerns are important and valid ones. They lead to the question about the representative-ness of histories, including this book. The aim here is to connect general ideas to their unfolding in different spaces without losing sight of characteristics of the idea in places where it is studied. As a consequence, the structure of the book emerges from three factors, the combination of which facilitates both a general and wider-resonating focus as well as attention to local developments. First, the book is concerned with themes emerging from the broader historical scholarship on young people and the 1960s as well as more theoretical discussions of youth as a category; second, it draws on insights from the scholarship on the Danish–German border region and national identities; third, it considers the primary sources (the school papers, magazines, letters, minutes and memoranda, as well as oral histories) that all shed light on the lives of young Danish and German minorities.

Youth and Young People in the 1960s Whereas examining the 1960s through the lens of young minority experiences in a European borderland is unique to this book, youth and the 1960s as a general topic is both a well-established and dynamic one. The fact that the combination of the words carries with it certain meanings and associations is driven by an ever-growing scholarship on the 1960s – in particular 1968 – but also by memory, experience and perhaps imagination. This book takes neither youth nor the 1960s for granted and both require preliminary discussion. Youth is understood here as being neither unambiguously nor universally defined. Youth is not a social constant in human societies, and it can have different meanings in different contexts. In other words, there is a difference between a physiological and social approach to age.9 In Centuries of Childhood, a study of childhood in the Middle Ages,

8  •  Beyond the Border

Philippe Aries first presented the idea that age is understood differently in different places and time. Aries argues that age has only become an important category in human societies in modern and contemporary times.10 In A History of Youth, Michael Mitterauer, another contributor to the development of a conceptual understanding of youth, argues that ‘it is of greatest importance to see youth not only in its biological determinants, but also as socially conditioned and historically changeable’.11 Mitterauer compares youth to other categories used by historians, for example, sexuality and male and female roles. He argues that ‘if a study deals only with natural forces and data, the impression is given that the theme is static and unchanging’.12 More recently, historians Giovanni Levi and Jean-Claude Schmitt have also ruled out, in A History of Young People in the West, that youth can be defined by biological or legal criteria only.13 Furthermore, they argue that a definition of youth always depends on the time and place studied.14 They describe youth as ‘a social and cultural construct’ and ‘an unstable social reality’,15 characterised by ‘an initial phase of separation and a final phase of integration’.16 They argue that society assigns roles, values and characters to youth.17 Levi and Schmitt’s insights bring us closer to an understanding of youth, which can structure this study: our understanding of youth thus needs to account for peculiarities of the period and the Danish–German border region. Furthermore, it is necessary to seek out what marked the entries and exits of individuals into youth, as well as investigate the values and expectations of society on youth. Other scholars share similar views. The geographer Peter Hopkins argues that the ‘experiences of young people depend upon how their age is perceived and implemented in different times and spaces’.18 That point is also established by Mitterauer, who argues that youth is not a constant ‘in the sense that it appears at all times in in all cultures in the same or even parallel forms’.19 Mary Jane Kehily argues that, in Western societies, youth is the period between childhood and adulthood during which an individual becomes independent.20 Youth, in the words of Levi and Schmitt, is associated with the period during which a person transitions from ‘infantile dependency’ to ‘adult autonomy’.21 Scholars have also assigned specific values and spaces to youths. Mitterauer suggests that youth in the West can be associated with the certain stereotypes such as idealism, enthusiasm and questioning society.22 Levi and Schmitt argue that, in modern times, a social solidarity of youth overstepped the boundaries of villages and districts.23 They also argue that the attention to young people by established society is ambiguous and often composed of simultaneous expectation and

Introduction • 9

suspicion.24 Luisa Passerini reaches similar conclusions and states in her study of youth in the 1950s and 1960s that adults saw youth as representing ‘a danger to themselves and society’.25 Overall, the wider society is important when studying youth. As Stephen Lovell argues, young people are under great influence from society through institutions such as the education system and the army.26 More scholars emphasise the importance of the individual’s exit from the category of youth. Joanna Wyn and Rob White point out that ‘youth is a relational concept because it exists and has meaning largely in relation to the concept of adulthood’,27 indicating the importance of adulthood as the destination, or point of completion of youth.28 Sociologist Jean Charles Lagree, to whom the description of youth as a transitional phase is too vague, also stresses this threshold of adulthood. He rejects youth as a phase by arguing that ‘at any given point in people’s lives, they are in transition, somewhere along the life course’.29 Instead, he describes youth as ‘a status obtained in various social domains’.30 These include leaving school and the family home, as well as entering the job market and forming a family.31 Lagree’s points are helpful in directing this study to focus on the topics and spheres of education and of choosing a profession as well as a partner and a place to live. The broad conceptualisation of youth as a category is important for this study. It ensures that the selection of sources relevant for interpretation takes place not only on the basis of physical age. Even though Hopkins argues that ‘all adult humans at some point have experienced youth’,32 it remains essential here that – depending on time and place – the experiences of youth were different in nature and duration. This means that if a 20-year-old, for example, had obtained full economic autonomy from their parents, and perhaps even become a parent themselves, they did not necessarily still belong to the category of youth. Conversely, a 30-year-old university student could still move within, as Lagree calls them, the social domains of youths. In the Danish–German border region of the 1960s, some people only belonged to the category of youth for a short period of time, whereas others belonged for longer. Clear examples of this point can be drawn from the oral history interviews conducted for this study.33 During an interview in 2013, a German-minority woman, who attended a vocational college after having completed her compulsory education, explained: I was twenty years old when I completed my education and started working in a Kindergarten … I was twenty-three when I had my first

10 • Beyond the Border

child. That was totally normal. A lot of people had children when they were in their early twenties.34

Assessing this woman’s statement according to conceptual considerations of youth, she left the category of youth somewhere between the age of twenty and twenty-three. Many others shared that experience but not all. Another statement – in this case by a Danish-minority woman who attended secondary school and studied at university in Copenhagen – shows that certain people could also remain in the category for a longer period of time. In 2014, the Danishminority woman, who had studied in Copenhagen when she was in her twenties, said about her experiences as a student in the Danish capital, away from South Schleswig: I would say that we felt a strong sense of moral responsibility … Our activity level shows that, otherwise we would have just forgot about it all. We created our own identity. We were a new generation and we had our own ideas about what a national minority should be.35

Although people like her may not have been the majority of people of this age group, they are important for this study. One of the arguments of this book is that these older youths were more likely to see themselves as a distinct group of minority youths and discuss their identities explicitly. In summary, youth is seen and treated here as a social construct. It is an unstable category that relies on individual experiences. Youth is defined not only by young people themselves, but also by the societies in which they live. This study of youth therefore pays attention to both young people themselves, but also to the spheres within which young people moved, and to the expectations and ideals established by wider society. In the same way that the boundaries of youth as a category are fuzzy, the 1960s is not seen here only as the actual decade. In Age of Extremes, Eric Hobsbawm defines the three-decade period of 1945–75 as ‘The Golden Age’.36 Hobsbawm argues that in Western societies during this period ‘youth, as a self-conscious group stretching from puberty … to the middle twenties, now became an independent social agent’.37 Hobsbawm points to the ‘astonishing internationalism’ of this youth culture that spread, he argues, through film, records, tapes, radio, images and fashion, reflecting the ‘overwhelming cultural hegemony of the USA in popular culture and lifestyles’ and taking the shape of ‘a global youth culture’.38 Arthur Marwick makes similar points in his pioneering study The Sixties, for years a key work for historians working with Hobsbawm’s

Introduction • 11

‘Golden Age’.39 In his own words, Marwick is interested in ‘social and cultural developments, the growing power of young people, the particular behaviour and activities associated with them, the changing relationships [and] the new standards of sexual behaviour’.40 Marwick suggests making 1958–59 the era’s starting point, rather than adopting Hobsbawm’s 1945.41 Marwick points to the growing influence of youth on society during this period and he argues that even youth as a collective changed during it: The rise to positions of unprecedented influence of young people, with youth subculture having a steadily increasing impact on the rest of society, dictating taste in fashion, music, and popular culture generally. Youth subculture was not monolithic: in respect to some developments one is talking of teenagers, with respect to others it may be a question of everyone under 30 or so.42

In order to uncover the social and cultural changes, Marwick suggests focusing on three different forces and constraints: structural ones (geographical, demographic, economic and technological); ideological ones (what was believed and what was no longer being believed); and institutional ones (government, justice, police, education, organisations, family and more).43 Furthermore, he calls for paying attention to events, specifically the Vietnam War, the Oil Crises, the Second World War and the Cold War and its nuclear stalemate.44 A final inspiration for a definition of the 1960s and a subsequent thematic focus is taken from Tony Judt’s Postwar, a modern classic of Europe after the Second World War. In the chapter ‘Prosperity and Its Discontents: 1953–1971’, Judt, like Hobsbawm, defines a period covering the whole decade of the sixties and the latter half of the fifties.45 Judt analyses and explains economic, political, social and cultural dimensions in Europe, the chapters ‘The Age of Affluence’ and ‘The Spectre of Revolution’ paying particular close attention to young people. Judt argues that ‘the striking feature of Europe in the nineteen fifties and sixties … was the number of children and youths … [and that] it was not just that millions of children had been born after the war: an unprecedented number of them had survived’.46 Judt emphasises the novelty and historical importance of the increased number of young people in Europe. He explains: Around 1957, for the first time in European history, young people started buying things themselves. Until this time young people had not even existed as a distinct group of consumers. Indeed ‘young people’ had not existed at all – In traditional families and communities, children remained children until they left school and went to work, at which point they were young adults. The intermediate category of ‘teenager’ in

12 • Beyond the Border

which a generation was defined not by its status but by its age – neither child nor adult – had no precedent.47

According to Judt, a common youth culture developed in the 1950s and 1960s; a culture that idealised America, because ‘for young people the appeal of America was its aggressive contemporaneity’.48 Judt explains that ‘although each national culture had its distinctive icons and institutions, its exclusively local reference points, many of the popular cultural forms of the age flowed with unprecedented ease across national boundaries’.49 This, according to Judt, made mass culture ‘international as a matter of definition’.50 Unlike Marwick, Judt includes experiences in West Germany and Denmark; however, his discussions take place on a common Western European level, and he discusses youth cultures within different national frameworks. His insight – that national cultures connected with an international one – motivates this investigation on the regional level, where the border did not demarcate complete separation between two homogenous and clearly distinct groups. Focusing more narrowly on youth in European Societies, Axel Schildt and Detlef Siegfried’s Between Marx and Coca-Cola points out additional foci for this study. Schildt and Siegfried argue, for example, that North and Western Europe, due to their high degrees of material wealth, became ‘the major entry point of trans-Atlantic cultural transfers, sometimes labelled Americanisation’.51 Schildt and Siegfried warn, however, that ‘a uniform manifestation of changes should not be expected’.52 They argue that ‘there were regional differences and specific national traditions which had consequences on the concrete manifestations of youth culture’ and that ‘a distinctive picture emerged in each country regardless of their common features’.53 The editors argue that ‘many “global” and western phenomena developed in hybrid with national customs and traditions’54 and the edited volume examines different aspects of youth culture. Detlef Siegfried, for example, analyses the rebellions of 1968, about which he argues that ‘only a small number of youths actually took part’55 and that ‘within single states there were local and regional differences’.56 Local and regional dimensions, however, are not subjected to further exploration. Adding new voices to studies of the long 1960s has characterised the development of the scholarship of the past decade, and this book seeks to contribute to that shift. Anette Warring, whose research encompasses ‘1968’ in Denmark as well as the Danish historiography of ‘1968’ warns that ‘until the late 1990s, the historiography was written primarily by activists powerfully influenced by their memories’.57 Furthermore, she points to the fact that ‘existing research on the Danish youth

Introduction  •  13

rebellion in both research and public debate has been thematically quite restricted to social and political movements and political parties, and geographically to the capital Copenhagen’.58 Warring also argues that that the generational question has not received enough attention, and that scholars need to question whether or not the experiences of rebellion that dominate the historiography are relevant to all’.59 Warring’s point about the dominance of rebellion in the historiography has also been developed by James Hijiya. Although Hijiya focuses solely on the United States, he argues that history has largely ignored what he calls ‘The Conservative 1960s’.60 Hijiya argues that ‘perhaps a reason why historians have not been as interested in investigating the new right in the 1960s is that ‘creating a mailing list’ (organisational work) was not as interesting as sitting in a segregated lunch canteen’.61 According to Hijiya, this has caused the new left to win the history of the 1960s. Lawrence Black has argued along similar lines in his study of Young Conservatives in Britain in the 1960s.62 Recently, the historical scholarship on youth has developed in several directions. In the same way that the focus on the left has been challenged by Hijiya, other historians have directed their foci beyond the big western European countries, for example, Nikolaos Papadogiannis, whose work focuses mainly on Greece.63 Papadogiannis has also studied Greek migrants in West Germany,64 as well social tourism and West German youth hostel organisations.65 Papadogiannis’ research adds a different layer to the understanding of the period as one of cultural Americanisation. He argues, for example, that in the case of young Greek communists, cultural influences came more from French and Soviet cinema than from Hollywood.66 Furthermore, he challenges the definition of the period the ‘long 1960’, pointing out that in the case of Greece, experiences which belong to this historiography cannot be constrained by Marwick’s definition.67 The emergence of an international youth culture typically associated with the West has also now been explored in the former communist European countries. Radina Vucetic argues, for example, that Yugoslavia, too, experienced street riots and violence in connection with student demonstrations in the 1960s.68 Anti-Vietnam-War sentiments, however, she argues must be understood in connection with Yugoslavia’s complicated political balancing act between East and West.69 Mark Fenemore has studied youth in Cold War East Germany, paying special attention to gender and sexuality as well as to official state positions on youth rebellions.70 Finally, Filip Pospíšil studied how ‘Western’ pop culture penetrated the iron curtain in Czechoslovakia.71

14  •  Beyond the Border

Others again called for studying the period from a perspective that looks beyond youth. Maud Bracke argues that the strong focus on youth in the historiography on ‘1968’ has been created by historians who were themselves young during that period.72 According to Bracke, these historians were predominantly male and well-educated, enabling them to take ownership of the generation.73 The result is a scholarship which focuses excessively on privileged student youth, and less so on other groups.74 Bracke calls for attention to collective identities other than generation in a particular gender. This study takes inspiration from her ideas: although it still focuses on youth, it examines their lives in a rural border region and brings into the discussion the intersections between age and national identities.

The Danish–German Borderlands, Minority and National Identities Scholars have studied the Danish–German borderlands for well over a century and a half, their foci and findings shifting through time depending on their motivations, origins, and academic disciplines. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the international scholarship perceived the borderlands as a case study of the consequences of the new ideas of nationalism in changing European societies; scholars of politics and international relations understood ‘The Schleswig Holstein Question’ as shorthand for the difficulties arising when medieval dynastic structures clashed with the ideas of national unity and popular representation.75 In the early and mid twentieth century, Danish and German nationally motivated historians and others studied the border region and argued for and against its ‘true’ belonging to either the German or the Danish nations.76 Since then, the topic of national conflict between Danes and Germans, as well as conflict more broadly, has stood central in Danish– German borderland historiography: a large amount of studies focus on the two nineteenth-century Schleswig Wars, the change of the border after the Great War, and the national animosities that resurfaced after the Second World War.77 Indeed conflict, in particular the Second World War, is an important topic in this book; the youths studied here were born just before, during, or just after it. Although they did not experience it as youths, society around them, and in particular that of the Danish–German borderlands, was marked by the experience of war for decades after its end.

Introduction • 15

By the late twentieth century, when relations between German and Danish groups in the border region had improved considerably, historians and social scientists returned to the idea of the border region as a case study. The improved relations, in particular between minorities and majorities on both sides of the border, led the borderlands to be seen as ‘a model region’ for peace and coexistence, suggesting that lessons from the Danish–German case could potentially be applicable in other contested European border regions as well.78 The Bonn and Copenhagen Declarations of 1955, the two similar but unilateral declarations spelling out minority rights in the border region, are often interpreted as the framework facilitating peaceful coexistence between the national groups.79 Within the recent stream of studies that conceptualise the Danish– German borderlands as a model region, En Europopæisk Model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000 is also a key volume on minority experiences in post-war Schleswig. It provides a historiographical overview and discusses in chapters by different contributors, various aspects of Danish and German minority history.80 The study deals with aspects of the minority past that concern church, politics and organisational structure, all embedded in the overarching question of whether the case of the Danish–German border region can serve as inspiration for improving relations between national groups in other border regions.81 The other large, recent survey of Danish and German minority issues, København–Bonn Erklæringerne 1955–2005 – De dansk-tyske mindretals-erklæringers baggrund, tilblivelse og virkning, deals more specifically with declarations of 1955, discusses their origins and nature.82 In the third publication within this stream, Minority Policy in Action: The Bonn-Copenhagen Declarations in a European Context 1955– 2005, edited by Jørgen Kühl and Marc Weller, the overall purpose is again to examine the feasibility of the Schleswig case as a model region for peaceful coexistence in other European border regions. This English-language edited volume contains additional chapters by Martin Klatt and Karen Margrethe Pedersen, which discuss crossborder cooperation, and minority language and identity in Schleswig respectably.83 The historian Peter Thaler has published another recent key study of the border region. Of Mind and Matter: The Duality of National Identity in the Danish–German Borderlands focuses on identity formation in the border region, and Thaler describes his own study as ‘a macrohistorical one which he hopes will inspire micro-historical studies’.84 Thaler argues that in the Danish–German border region ‘national self-identification rather than colour, creed or lifestyle … guided the

16  •  Beyond the Border

identification process’.85 Furthermore, Thaler points to the problem that the scholarship of borders and border regions has tended to focus on conflicts.86 Large studies focusing exclusively on the minorities have been published as well, although they are of an earlier date and exist in Danish only. Johan Peter Noack has studied the Danish minority in the period 1920–55 in three different two-volume studies.87 Noack’s studies provide solid accounts of political developments and key figures of the Danish minority in South Schleswig. Henrik Becker-Christensen has studied the German minority, 1920–32, in an impressive twovolume account that also establishes key political figures, events and developments.88 This book draws extensively on Noack’s and BeckerChristensen’s studies, as well as on the excellent local historical research that, in particular, Hans Schultz Hansen and Inge Adriansen have published over the last decades. Studies of the borderlands that look beyond conflicts and political themes are not completely absent. Linguists and anthropologists, for example, have contributed research that focuses on other aspects of minority experiences.89 Karen Margrethe Pedersen has studied the use of the Danish language in South Schleswig and reached the important conclusion that language does not necessarily correspond to national self-identification. Pedersen departs from the theoretical position that national identity is a social construction in which language is seen as a main component. Pedersen argues that majority populations are oftentimes not conscious about the fact that national identities are social constructions and therefore ignore the possibility that they exist in variation.90 Pedersen also argues that the conventional perception of the correlation between national identity and language sometimes presents a challenge to some members of the minority as well.91 Pedersen has studied the language and identity of the German minority too. She argues that the German minority in North Schleswig is a minority because it sees itself as one: their identity is a conscious act of self-ascription, and no external or physical factors separate the minority from the majority.92 In an anthropological study of the German minority in the 1980s, Michael Byram also studies the connections between – and questions of – language, education and identity. Byram argues that, even though the experiences of the two minorities are linked, it would be misleading to see the minorities on both sides of the border as ‘mirror-images of each other’.93 Byram also warns that the definition of the German minority is vague and the differences from the majority population subtle.94 He attempts, however, to establish some characteristics of what it

Introduction • 17

means to be part of the minority, and he concludes that a definition could include: being able to speak the language of the nation that the minority affiliates itself with; having attended a minority school; being a member of one or more of the minority’s associations; and reading the minority’s newspaper.95 Byram and Pedersen’s insights about the minorities are valuable for this book because they do not take the minority category for granted but instead provide insights into what practices being part of the minorities actually include. Understanding identities as practised, rather than naturally existing, is crucial here. Identities are often understood as something stable and permanent, as the resting essence of an individual’s sense of self, but they can also be seen differently as dynamic. According to Steph Lawler, it is impossible to give a comprehensive definition of identity; instead, she suggests that ‘identity hinges on an apparently paradoxical combination of sameness and difference’.96 Lawler explains this by pointing out that people’s identity depends on their recognition of similarities and differences in others; thus ‘identity needs to be understood not as belonging ‘within’ the person but as produced between persons and within social relations’.97 Richard Jenkins has also argued that identity is about ‘the ways in which individuals and collectives are distinguished in their social relations with other individuals and collectivities’.98 Identity thus relies on people’s understanding of themselves and others and on their similarities and differences.99 According to John Hopkins, identities gain their persistence from repetitive articulation.100 Such persistence can make identities appear as if they are static and exist on their own. But, as Hopkins explains, identities are constructed through social relations and everyday behaviour.101 This means that, with the changing of such relations and behaviour over time, identity changes too. In order to study and grasp these changes of identities, social relations and everyday practices must be the focal points. Furthermore, Hopkins suggests that ‘identity is about simultaneous creation, maintenance and protection of particular categories, and the rejection, renunciation and disavowal of other categories’.102 In other words, Hopkins suggests that identities can be uncovered by paying attention to how ideals, ideas and practices are shaped, maintained, modified and rejected over time. Hopkins also provides suggestions for where to search for identities: they can be communicated and represented through practices, text, hair, dress and body-language, and be recognised and interpreted by others. This creates a so-called negotiation process, during which identities can be

18  •  Beyond the Border

adopted or modified, contested, challenged or resisted.103 This process should not be seen as a simple and straightforward one; rather, it is ongoing and may be contradictory. Hopkins maintains that ‘various identities overlap and intersect in complex ways’.104 In the same way that identity is understood here as a social construction, so is the nation. In 1983, Benedict Anderson coined the term ‘imagined communities’, in order to describe the notion that the nation exists mainly because the members of it imagine (and believe) it does.105 Ernest Gellner holds similar views saying that ‘two men are of the same nation if, and only if, they recognise each other as belonging to the same nation … [and] if, and only if, they share the same culture, where culture in turn means a system of ideas, signs and associations, and ways of behaving and communicating’.106 Eric Hobsbawm also sees nations as constructions which are neither primary nor unchanging.107 In fact, he argues that national identities shift with time, and that they can do so quite quickly.108 Overall, Hobsbawm argues that the nations and the terms deriving from it are socially and historically rooted, thus they are not ‘free-floating philosophical discourses’.109 Finally, Anthony D. Smith describes nations as characterised by the belief in a shared heritage and ancestry of the group; by the cultivation of shared symbols, values and traditions; by the belief that it belongs in a traditional homeland; and by the creation of a common public culture.110 The geographer Tim Edensor adds another useful layer to the understanding of national identities. Alongside focusing on the culture generated by the idea of a common ancestry, a shared history, language and customs, he suggests looking elsewhere too. According to Edensor, identifying national cultures needs to include popular cultural producers within, for example, music, sport and fashion, as well as cultural practices such as dancing, sport and other pastimes.111 As this study focuses on national identifications of young people in a time when – as argued by Marwick, Siegfried, Judt and others – cultural producers and practices for young people changed, Edensor’s ideas are particularly relevant. Some specific observations regarding national minorities need to be brought to the fore too. In An Ethnic History of Europe since 1945: Nations, States and Minorities, Panikos Panayi argues that national minorities are created by the fact that not all members of a nation-state can fit the ideals created by its nationalism.112 He stresses that national minorities, in particular, experience the conflict between the homogenous ideal and heterogenic reality.113 But suggesting that minorities themselves are homogenous groups would be misleading too. In her study of national classifications in the French and Czechoslovak borderlands,

Introduction • 19

for example, Tara Zahra argues that neither language nor nationalities were straightforward facts.114 Furthermore – in a study of German expellees from Poland – Annika Frieberg warns against seeing expellees as one group, stressing that ‘the role of minorities can be multifaceted’.115 Finally, Eeva-Kaisa Prokkola describes identities in borderlands as being synonymous with cultural diversity and hybridity,116 and James E. Bjork asserts that nationality might not even be the main source of identification in borderlands.117 In summary, the conceptual insights, to which this study owes its foci, are not unequivocal. Identities, be they territorial or age related are not static phenomena; in order to grasp and discuss them, the book focuses on the ways in which they are discussed and the context and the spaces in which they existed. Similarly, the book treats neither the Danish and German minorities nor the long 1960s as easily graspable phenomena. Minority youths were not a homogenous group, nor were the long 1960s only characterised by international connections through culture. What is offered here, is a constructed account that attempts to relate some issues at play and discuss the implications.

Sources Whereas the discussion above has contributed to defining the focus of this book, ultimately, its content has been determined by primary sources. Locating, evaluating, and interpreting primary source material remains the essence of a historical analysis and the practical nature of research that follows from abstract conceptual and theoretical considerations. One problem is that the primary material was not created in order to be subjected to historical analysis. Primary sources may have been removed from their context, or information of interest may have been omitted. From the beginning, this study faced two main challenges. First, Danish and German minority sources do not exist in parallel form. Second, identifying and establishing an overview of the potentially relevant material took time, in particular, because a historical study focusing specifically on young people has not been done before. The Danish minority’s library in Flensburg, Dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (DCBS), holds complete series of contemporaneous Danish minority publications for and by youths. These publications have been essential sources. They include Treklangen, the official youth magazine in South Schleswig, edited and published by Sydslesvigs danske ungdomsforeninger (SdU), the Danish minority’s youth

20 • Beyond the Border

association; and Vulkanen, the student paper at Duborg-Skolen in Flensburg, the Danish minority’s only secondary school in South Schleswig. Vulkanen was written entirely by students, although the school censored it until the mid 1960s. Both Treklangen and Vulkanen were published throughout the entire period covered by this book. Moreover, the library holds two publication series Front og Bro and FSS-Nyt, written and published by Foreningen af Sydslesvigske Studerende, the association for Danish minority university students. In addition, extensive use has been made of the Danish border periodical Grænsen. Although published in Copenhagen, Grænsen covered – and still does today – issues related to the Danish–German border region, in particular the Danish and German minorities. Finally, the online services of Flensborg Avis, the largest Danish-minority daily, have been consulted as well. The online archive contains scans of all issues of the newspaper. The amount of archival material relevant for studies of Danishminority youth is vast. In addition to holding these publications, DCBS has also collected and keeps documents related to young people’s lives and experiences. The entire material – a mixture of personal and institutional archives – is indexed and searchable via the library’s website. The blessing of such an extensive and well-organised archive, however, was a challenge at the same time. Even before the data collection for this book began, it became clear that consulting all of the material available was impossible. As a consequence of this, a focused research strategy was necessary, starting with in-depth analyses of Treklangen and Vulkanen. All issues of both publications have been studied thoroughly in order to identify the different themes which were since connected with relevant findings in the other publications and Flensborg Avis. Ultimately, the archival material was used to substantiate and contextualise the different ways in which young people discussed and perceived their national belonging, in relation to the changing society around them. The research strategy has had strengths and weaknesses. By studying the topics that made it to be discussed by young people in public, it is assumed (but not guaranteed) that such topics were important. Furthermore, the different views and opinions on these topics may have caused young people to reflect upon them and develop new ideas and views. It has been assumed that articles in Vulkanen and Treklangen had a greater impact on – and were more representative of – the ideas that influenced young people’s identities than, for example, minutes from a meeting in a youth association.118 On the other hand, one serious shortcoming of this strategy has become the study’s focus

Introduction • 21

on the segment of youth who attended Duborg-Skolen or studied at university. Second, the book pays a disproportional amount of attention to those who participated in the debates, whereas those who did not are underrepresented. It is crucial to stress that it was only a minority of Danish youth in South Schleswig who attended DuborgSkolen and contributed actively to the debate. In consequence, the book has admittedly become too focused on the minority experiences of the privileged students mostly in Flensburg and Copenhagen. Unfortunately, this makes it guilty of perpetuating a limited focus, similar to the one of the historical scholarship on young people in the 1960s, criticised by, in particular, Maud Anne Bracke and also Anette Warring. Despite the fact that these groups of privileged students were indeed the most vocal ones in the debate studied here, studies of young people outside these spheres, as well as methodological ideas of how to study such groups can only be encouraged. Primary sources shedding light on the lives of German-minority youth, are available as well, albeit in a considerably smaller volume than in the case of the Danish minority. The German minority’s archive in Aabenraa holds collections from Deutsche Jugendverband für Nordschleswig, the minority’s youth association, and Deutscher Schulund Sprachverein Nordschleswig, the minority’s school and language association. These collections consist mainly of letters, memoranda, minutes, lists of activities, etc. Both collections have been consulted and analysed in depth. Furthermore, the archive holds the complete series of Die Brücke, the youth association’s official youth magazine published from 1964 until 1968. The magazine was the only one of its kind in North Schleswig as, unfortunately, the German secondary school in Aabenraa and the vocational college in Tinglev had no school papers, at least according to the institutions themselves. What is more, neither the secondary school nor the college has deposited any student-made archival material in Aabenraa. Both institutions have, however, published good accounts of their histories, which, of course, have been useful.119 In addition to the collections from the German minority’s institutions, the archive holds a private collection from Kreis Junger Schleswiger, a youth forum established in Aabenraa in 1961. The collection has been deposited in the archive only recently by one of its founders, Siegfried Christiansen. Christiansen, born 1943 in North Schleswig, has furthermore given access to his own private archive, which contains letters and memoranda as well as an extraordinarily extensive collection of newspaper clips from Flensborg Avis and Der Nordschleswiger, the German minority’s daily paper, published from

22 • Beyond the Border

1946 onwards. Furthermore, his archive contains the semester reports from the entire decade of the 1960s of Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten (VSSt), the German minority’s student association in Copenhagen. Access to Christiansen’s collection has been invaluable for the preparation of this book. Another private archive has been consulted too, namely that of Günter Weitling, one of the first youths to actively participate in the debate about the place of Germanminority youth in society. Collections held by the Danish national archive’s local branch in Aabenraa have also been consulted. The archive mainly holds material about the German minority before 1945, but the few post-war collections that do exist have been useful. The collections containing newspaper clips have been very useful, as the digitalisation of Der Nordschleswiger has not yet been completed. The digitalisation, however, is expected to be complete in the very near future, which is why references to the German-minority newspaper throughout this book are made directly to the paper and not to the archive folder where the clip was first seen. This not only ensures a standardised style of referencing for all published primary sources, but it also makes consulting the references easier once digitalisation is complete. Finally, extensive use has been made of the minority’s annual publication Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig. To an admittedly somewhat lesser extent, the German South Schleswig border periodical, similar to Grænsen in Denmark, Grenzfriedenshefte, has been consulted too. The initial concern about the lesser availability of German-minority than Danish-minority material has not resulted in a real problem for this book; at least not in the sense that too little material existed for making an analysis. The Danish and German source material available is in no way analytically exhausted by this study. Although based mainly on written sources, oral history interviews were conducted as a part of the research process of this book and extracts from the interviews have been included and used in the analysis. During the period 2013–16, twelve interviews were conducted, with six individuals of the Danish minority and with six of the German one; within each group three interviewees were women and three were men. All interviewees were born between the late 1930s and the mid 1950s.120 The interviews were all structured as open life-story accounts where the interviewees were asked to reflect on their childhood and youth, covering a range of topics. These topics included: school, family life at home, friendships, potential further education, personal interests, and reflections about being Danish or German minority as well as interactions with the majority populations.

Introduction  •  23

The use of oral sources in history has been both encouraged and contested. The Oral History Reader points out that oral history has opened up history as a discipline to people who were not previously included in it, in particular women, minorities and disadvantaged groups.121 It has been described as ‘allowing the original multi-faceted nature of the past to resurface’.122 Oral history has also, however, been connected to criticism of the traditional discipline of history, which Paul Thompson – one of the oral history pioneers – describes as ‘inherently authoritarian’.123 In return, oral histories have been seen by others as invalid sources for historians, the essence of the criticism against them being that memories are distorted over time.124 Lynn Abrams has discussed the problem of distortions of memory over time in relation to the use of oral sources in history. She argues that memory is not only about remembering facts.125 Instead she suggests that oral historians pay attention to the interplay between what is remembered, how it is remembered, and why.126 In addition to only using oral history as a supplement – or replacement – of written sources, she calls for awareness of the fact that oral history is also source creation; that historians should pay attention to their own role in the creation of an oral history.127 Especially during the early phases of this research, the interviews were extremely helpful. First, they contributed to establishing an overall understanding of what a daily routine was like. Second, they indicated areas worthy of further explorations, pointing specifically towards activities and institutions that were important in young people’s lives. Finally, the personal connections gave access to written material, which has been of great value to the analysis.

Structure During the process of organising the material, several concerns had to be given attention. As the book explores a well-established time period in historical research in its own right, it was important to structure the chapters in a somewhat chronological order. Furthermore, the ambition to elucidate changes over time could only be fulfilled if chronology was respected. On the other hand, the analysis of the primary sources quickly established that different conversations and experiences took place simultaneously. However tempting it seems, it would be inaccurate to suggest that one development followed the other in a straightforward and logical way. Consequently, the chapters were drafted by paying attention to specific factors of influence on young people’s lives, while attempting to respect chronology. This

24  •  Beyond the Border

has resulted in seven chapters discussing young people’s experiences, each departing from their own foci. Chapter 1 sets the scene for the study, focusing on young minorities in the period before 1955. It does so by discussing what characterised Danish- and German-minority identities during the period before and after 1945. The chapter discusses the contextual developments and institutions that influenced the lives of young people, and specific references to the positions of young people are highlighted where possible. Whereas the changes within each minority group were colossal, some overarching characteristics of minority identity in the border region remained the same. Even though, in some respects, the positions of the two minorities inversed, their loyalty to the kin-state remained strong and unquestioned. The legitimacy of the border was still challenged, and the sentiment of being arbitrarily separated from the nation on the other side of it continued. Chapter 2 examines influences and consequences of wider political changes in the late 1950s and early 1960s on minority youth identities. It investigates Denmark and West Germany’s partnership in NATO and the formulation of the Copenhagen and Bonn Declarations. The developments led to the reintroduction of military service in West Germany, and the right of the German minority in Denmark to reestablish a secondary school. In connection with both developments, young people began asserting that they no longer saw majority populations as their opponents, albeit the shift was neither unequivocal nor all encompassing. Overall, however, young people accepted more readily than the older generation what they perceived to be the new, political realities. Chapter 3 traces the debates on Europe as communicated either by young people or in publications for young people. Positions of the German minority in general were presented in publications such as the Volkskalender, the Grenzfriedenshefte and Der Nordschleswiger. In South Schleswig, the topic of Europe could be found in Vulkanen, Treklangen and Front og Bro, as well as in Flensborg Avis and Grænsen. Special attention is paid to differences between the positions traceable in the different publications and to generational differences between the positions on Europe. The archive of the Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN) provides additional insight into one consequences of Europe for the Schleswig minorities: within the framework of the association for national minorities all over Europe, the conditions of the Danish and German minorities were placed in a new context. Chapter 4 explores how young people reflected upon and remembered events in the Schleswig past. Moreover, the chapter

Introduction • 25

discusses how youths positioned themselves towards the ideas of the Danish and German establishments of the past. It draws out examples from an attempt by German-minority youths to come to terms with the past themselves by challenging Jugendverband’s ban on political issues. Second, it examines how the past was presented to the Danishminority youth and how young people reacted. Special attention is paid to the tradition of commemorations, in particular the Danish defeat in the 1864 war, commemorated in 1964. Chapter 5 analyses the developments of the 1960s in the sphere of leisure and free-time activities. Leisure was typically nationalised, in the sense that in particular sport was played in clubs exclusively for Danes or Germans. With the emergence of new activities and interests for and of young people, such as jazz, pop music and generally socialising in new ways, young people challenged the idea of separation between Danes and Germans. The situation was overwhelmingly similar on both sides of the border, which is why experiences and developments in North and South Schleswig are discussed together. Chapter 6 examines minority youth relationships with the kin-state on the other side of the border. It discusses how, on the one hand, Danish-minority youths were encouraged to study in Denmark but also, on the other hand, expected to return to South Schleswig in order to contribute to ‘the Danish cause’. Alongside contesting the actual nature of that cause, young people also began challenging the hitherto undisputed idolisation of Denmark and discussing what belonging to a national minority actually meant. In North Schleswig, the German minority’s relationship with its kin-state, West Germany, was different. Nevertheless, the German minority also attempted to encourage its young people to stay in the region. What is more, a similar discussion about what being a minority entailed took place. Chapter 7 investigates some of the themes typically associated with the late 1960s. It attempts to establish how minority youth discussed new ideas and adopted new practices. In more detail, the chapter analyses how – and with what consequences – global ideas and causes as well as rebellious practices and rhetoric were adopted by young people. In the German minority, the established youth association, Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten (VSSt), attempted in 1969–70 to change the organisation’s exclusively male composition. Where VSSt made the contemporary cause of women’s rights their own, the way in which they did so was less controversial than the cause itself. In South Schleswig in 1969, young people were also influenced by the world around them and their publications now almost focused mainly on political questions unrelated to the border region. In addition,

26  •  Beyond the Border

one of the most established Danish minority youth organisations, Flensborg Ungdomsforening (FUF), became the scene of a rebellion that resembled other youth rebellions in Europe and beyond in 1968– 69. Despite its very confrontational nature, the rebellion in FUF was not as controversial as a speech held at a commemoration in 1970.

Notes  1. Fickers, ‘“Generational Conflicts”’.  2. Ibid.   3. Henningsen, ‘Det danske mindretal’, 315.   4. Lubowitz, ‘Det tyske mindretal’, 273.  5. Iriye, ‘Transnational History’; Curthoys and Lake, Connected Worlds, 5.   6. Curthoys and Lake, Connected Worlds, 14–15.  7. Ibid.   8. Haupt and Kocka, Comparative and Transnational History, 10.  9. See for example: Pain, ‘Age, Genration and Lifecourse’. 10. Aries, Centuries of Childhood, 18. 11. Mitterauer and Dunphy, A History of Youth, 1–2. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., 7. 14. Levi and Schmitt, Young People in the West, 1997. 15. Ibid., 2. 16. Ibid., 5. 17. Ibid., 6. 18. Hopkins, Young People, Place and Identity, 3. 19. Mitterauer and Dunphy, A History of Youth, 11. 20. Kehily, Understanding Youth, 3. 21. Levi and Schmitt, Young People in the West, 2. 22. Mitterauer and Dunphy, A History of Youth, 9. 23. Levi and Schmitt, Young People in the West, 10. 24. Ibid., 2. 25. Passerini, ‘Youth as a Metaphor’, 318. 26. Lovell, Generations in Twentieth-Century Europe, 5. 27. Wyn and White, Rethinking Youth, 11. 28. Ibid. 29. Lagree, ‘Youth in Europe’. 30. Ibid. 31. Ibid. 32. Hopkins, Young People, Place and Identity, 4. 33. See below for methodological considerations on the use of oral histories. 34. Oral History Interview by Tobias Haimin Wung-Sung [hereafter OHI: TWS] (8 August 2013): German-minority female born 1953. 35. OHI: TWS (18 September 2014): Danish-minority female born 1948 36. Hobsbawm, Age of Extremes.

Introduction • 27

37. Ibid., 324. 38. Ibid., 327. 39. Already in 1999, Luisa Passerini described Marwick’s study as ‘a major one’’. See: Passerini, ‘Reviewed Work’, 1,642–43. According to Google Scholar, Marwick’s The Sixties has been cited 845 times, as of August 2016. 40. Marwick, The Sixties, 8. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid., 24. 44. Ibid. 45. ‘Prosperity and Its Discontents: 1954–1971’ is Part Two in Judt, Postwar. 46. Ibid., 331. 47. Ibid., 347. 48. Ibid., 351. 49. Ibid., 394. 50. Ibid. 51. Schildt and Siegfried, Between Marx and Coca-Cola, 5. 52. Ibid., 7. 53. Ibid. 54. Ibid., 27. 55. Detlef Siegfried, ‘Understanding 1968: Youth Rebellion, Generational Change and Postindustrial Society’, in ibid., 59. 56. Ibid., 62. 57. Warring, ‘Around 1968: Danish Historiography’, 353. 58. Ibid., 360. 59. Ibid. 60. Hijiya, ‘The Conservative 1960s’. 61. Ibid., 213. 62. Black, ‘The Lost World of Young Conservatism’. 63. Latest publications on Greece include: Papadogiannis, ‘Between Angelopoulos and The Battleship Potemkin’; Papadogiannis and Gehrig, ‘“The Personal is Political”‘; and Papadogiannis, ‘Red and Purple?’. 64. Papadogiannis, ‘A (Trans) National Emotional Community?’. 65. Papadogiannis, ‘“Keeping with Contemporary Times”‘. 66. Papadogiannis, ‘Between Angelopoulos and The Battleship Potemkin’. 67. Ibid. 68. Vucetic, ‘Violence against the Antiwar Demonstrations’. 69. Ibid. 70. Fenemore, Sex, Thugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll. 71. Pospíšil, ‘Youth Cultures’. 72. Bracke, ‘One-dimentional Conflict?’ 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. See, for example: von Stein, La Question du Schleswig-Holstein; Solger, Memorial on the Schleswig-Holstein Question; von Wenckstern, Ten Years of the Schleswig-Holstein Question; Bernard, The Schleswig-Holstein Question; and Anonymous, Schleswig-Holstein a Second Poland. For a classic study of

28  •  Beyond the Border

‘The Schleswig-Holstein Question’ in English, see: Steefel, The SchleswigHolstein Question. 76. The most influential Danish-biased study is Eskildsen, Dansk grænselære. The book was published for the first time just before the outbreak of the Second World War, and republished in 1945 and 1946, when the Danish minority in South Schleswig boomed. The German historian Kurt Jürgensen’s publications in the 1960s represented a German-biased view. He argued, for example, that the establishment of the Bundesland Schleswig-Hostein was the realisation of the aspirations of 1848, (see: Jürgensen, Die Gründung des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, 20, 8) and that the Danish minority in South Schleswig was a threat to ‘the century-long tradition of Schleswig-Holstein unity (see: ibid., 106–8). 76. For accounts in English of the two nineteenth-century Schleswig Wars see: Adriansen and Christensen, The First Schleswig War; Adriansen and Christensen, The Second Schleswig War; and Svendsen, The First SchleswigHolstein War, 1848–50 (Solihull, England: Helion & Co., 2009). Recent studies in Danish also include: Adriansen and Frandsen, Efter 1864. For studies relating to the Great War and/or on the plebiscite and change of the border, see for example Adriansen and Doege, Dansk eller tysk?: agitation ved folkesafstemningerne i Slesvig i 1920; Becker-Christensen, Dansk mindretalspolitik. For studies of relating to the Second World War or immediate post-war experiences, see: Hansen Nielsen, Tyske flygtninge; Kristensen, Straffelejren; Heidrich, Hillenstedt and Gerdes, Fremdes Zuhause; Festersen, ‘Dänemark und die deutsche Volksgruppe’; Berdichevsky, ‘Danish Dilemmas’; Thomsen, Danske sydslesvigske soldater; Klatt, Flygtningene og Sydslesvigs; Wingender, Modstand i Sydslesvig; and Noack, Det tyske mindretal. 78. Most noably: Loxtermann, Das deutsch–dänische Grenzgebiet, 4; Center for Freds- og Konfliktforskning; Kühl and Weller, Minority Policy in Action; and Kühl, ed., En europæisk model? 79. Ibid. and Bohn, Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins, 113. 80. Kühl, En europæisk model?. In two different chapters, Frank Lubowitz discusses the German minority in Denmark, 1945–1955, and the organisations of the German minority: Lubowitz, ‘Det tyske mindretal i Danmark 1945– 1955’; and Lubowitz, ‘Det tyske mindretals organisationer’. Gösta Toft provides a chapter about the German minority’s political party, Slesvigsk Parti: Toft, ‘Slesvigsk Parti, 1945–2000’, 157–74; and Weitling writes about the German congregations in North Schleswig: Weitling, ‘Kirke og identitet’. Martin Klatt writes about the Danish minority in the period 1945–55 (Klatt, ‘Det danske mindretal 1945–1955’); and Lars Henningsen discusses the Danish congregations in South Schleswig (Henningsen, ‘Kirkeliv og identitet’, 265–80). Finally, the editor of the volume, Jørgen Kühl, contributes with a chapter about the Danish minority political party in South Schleswig and the organisations of the Danish minority: Kühl, ‘Dansk mindretalspolitik i Tyskland’; and Kühl, ‘Det danske mindretals organisationer’. 81. Kühl, En europæisk model?

Introduction • 29

  82. Kühl, ed., København-Bonn Erklæringerne 1955–2005; Klatt, ‘De nationale mindretal’ i det grænseoverskridende samarbejde 1945–2005’, in ibid.   83. For a discussion on the Danish–German Border Region as an example for integration in the European Context, see: Kühl and Weller, Minority Policy in Action; Pedersen, ‘Languages and Identities’.   84. Thaler, Of Mind and Matter, 2.   85. Ibid.   86. Ibid., 14.   87. Noack, Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1920–1945; Noack, Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1948–1955; Noack, Det sydslesvigske grænsespørgsmål 1945–1947.   88. Becker-Christensen, Det tyske mindretal i Nordslesvig.   89. For example: Braunmuller, ‘Current Linguistic Situation’; Pedersen, Dansk sprog i Sydslesvig’; Pedersen, ‘A National Minority’; Pedersen, ‘German Minority Children in the Danish Border Region’; Byram, Minority Education; and Byram, ‘Minority Schools’.  90. Pedersen, Dansk sprog i Sydslesvig.  91. Ibid.  92. Pedersen, ‘A National Minority’.   93. Byram, Minority Education, xi–xii.   94. Ibid., 2.  95. Ibid., 9.   96. Lawler, Identity: Sociological Perspectives, 2.  97. Ibid., 8.   98. Jenkins, Social Identity, 4.  99. Ibid. pp. 4–5 100. Hopkins, Young People, Place and Identity, 7. 101. Ibid. 102. Hopkins, Young People, Place and Identity, 7. 103. Ibid., 10. 104. Ibid., 9. 105. Anderson, Imagined Communities. 106. Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 7. 107. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780, 9–10. 108. Ibid., 11. 109. Ibid., 9. 110. Smith, ‘Were There Nations in Antiquity?’. 111. Edensor, National Identity, 9. 112. Panayi, An Ethnic History, 8. 113. Ibid., 9. 114. Zahra, ‘The “Minority Problem”‘. 115. Frieberg, ‘Transnational Spaces in National Places’. 116. Eeva-Kaisa Prokkola, ‘Unfixing Borderland Identity’, 8. 117. James E. Bjork, Neither German nor Pole, 6–9. 118. In Siegfried, ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’, 145, the author argues that the magazines and articles produced for and by young people both influenced and reflected young people’s identities.

30  •  Beyond the Border

119. The publications about and by the German secondary school in Aabenraa used can be found here: Doege, ed., 50 Jahre Deutsches Gymnasium; Doege, ed., 25 Jahre Deutsches Gymnasium; Festersen, ed., 50 Jahre Deutsches Gymnasium. For publications about the college in Tinglev, see: Heimatverbunden, Festschrift, and Lubowitz, ‘Volkshochschule Tingleff’. 120. See bibliography for complete data for each interview. 121. Perks and Thomson, eds, The Oral History Reader, xiii. 122. Thompson, The Voice of the Past, 6. 123. Ibid., 23–24. 124. Perks and Thomson, ‘Critical developments’; Abrams, Oral History Theory, 5. 125. Abrams, 79. 126. Ibid., 81. 127. Ibid., 16.

Bibliography Abrams, Lynn. Oral History Theory. London: Routledge, 2010. Adriansen, Inge and Jens Ole Christensen. The Second Schleswig War 1864: Prelude, Events and Consequences. Translated by Michael Cain. Sønderborg: Sønderborg slot, 2013. ———. The First Schleswig War 1848–1851: Prelude, Events and Consequences. Translated by Michael Cain. Sønderborg: Sønderborg slot, 2015. Adriansen, Inge and Immo Doege. Dansk eller tysk?: agitation ved folkesafstemningerne i Slesvig i 1920. Sønderborg: Deutsche Museen Nordschleswig, Museum Sønderjylland, 2010. Adriansen, Inge and Steen Bo Frandsen, eds. Efter 1864: krigens følger på kort og langt sigt. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag, 2015. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983. Anonymous. Schleswig-Holstein a Second Poland: An Appeal to the British Nation. Hamburg: J.H. Meyer, 1865. Aries, Philippe. Centuries of Childhood. 3rd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986. Becker-Christensen, Henrik. Dansk mindretalspolitik i Nordslesvig: udformningen af den danske politik over for det tyske mindretal 1918–20. Aabenraa: Institut for Grænseregionsforskning, 1984. ———. Det tyske mindretal i Nordslesvig 1920–1932. Aabenraa: Institut for Grænseregionsforskning, 1990. Berdichevsky, Norman. ‘Danish Dilemmas: South Schleswig after World War II and “Unassimilated” Immigrants Today’, World Affairs 167, no. 2 (2004): 79–87. Bernard, Montague. The Schleswig-Holstein Question Considered in a Lecture Delivered March 9, 1864. Oxford; London: J.H. & J. Parker, 1,864.

Introduction  •  31

Bjork, James E. Neither German nor Pole: Catholicism and National Indifference in a Central European Borderland. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2008. Black, Lawrence. ‘The Lost World of Young Conservatism’. Historical Journal 51, no. 4 (2008): 991–1,024. Bohn, Robert. Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins Beck’sche Reihe, Band 2615. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2006. Bracke, Maud Anne. ‘One-dimentional Conflict? Recent Scholarship on 1968 and the Limitations of the Generation Concept’. Journal of Contemporary History 47, (2012): 638–45. Braunmuller, K. ‘Current Linguistic Situation of the Danish Minority in Schleswig-Holstein’. European Journal of Scandinavian Studies 42, no. 2 (2012): 233–39. Byram, Michael. Minority Education and Ethnic Survival: Case Study of a German School in Denmark. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1986. ———. ‘Minority Schools in the Former Duchy of Schleswig’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 2, no. 3 (2010): 175–82. Center for Freds- og Konfliktforskning, ed., Slesvigsk grænselære: En model for mindretal og modsætninger i nationernes Europa?, Vandkunsten, 7/8 (April 1992). Copenhagen: Eirene for Center for Freds- og Konfliktforskning. Curthoys, Ann and Marilyn Lake. Connected Worlds: History in Transnational Perspective. Canberra, Australia: ANUE Press, 2005. Doege, Immo, ed. 50 Jahre Deutsches Gymnasium in Nordschleswig –Eine Festschrift –1930–1945. Apenrade: Deutscher Schul und Sprachverein für Nordschleswig, 1980. ———, ed. 25 Jahre Deutsches Gymnasium für Nordschleswig –Eine Festschrift –1945–1984. Apenrade: Deutscher Schul- und Sprachverein für Nordschleswig, 1984. Edensor, Tim. National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg, 2002. Eskildsen, Claus. Dansk grænselære. Copenhagen: Grænseforeningen, 1937. Fenemore, Mark. Sex, Thugs and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Teenage Rebels in Cold-War East Germany. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2007. Festersen, Jürgen. ‘Dänemark und die deutsche Volksgruppe in Nordschleswig 1940 bis 1945’. In Deutschsprachige Minderheiten 1945: Ein europäischer Vergleich, edited by Manfred Kittel, Horst Mölle, Jiri Pesek and Oldrich Tuma, 571–612. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2007. ———, ed. 50 Jahre Deutsches Gymnasium für Nordschleswig. Apenrade: Deutsches Gymnasium für Nordschleswig, 2009. Fickers, Andreas. ‘Generational Conflicts, the Spirit of ’68 and Cultural Emancipation in the German Speaking Community of Belgium. A Historical Essay About the ‘73 Generation. In Borderland Studies Meets Child Studies, edited by Machteld Venken, 163–84. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2017. Frieberg, Annika. ‘Transnational Spaces in National Places: Early Activists in Polish–West German Relations’. Nationalities Papers 38, no. 2 (2010): 213–26. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism. New York: Cornell University Press, 1983.

32  •  Beyond the Border

Hansen Nielsen, Leif. Tyske flygtninge i Nordslesvig 1945–1948, edited by Hans Schultz Hansen and Henrik Skov Kristensen. Aabenraa: Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 2013. Haupt, Heinz-Gerhard and Jürgen Kocka. Comparative and Transnational History: Central European Approaches and New Perspectives. New York: Berghahn Books, 2009. Heidrich, Hermann, Ilka Hillenstedt and Kay Gerdes. Fremdes Zuhause: Flüchtlinge und Vertriebene in Schleswig-Holstein nach 1945. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 2009. Heimatverbunden. Festschrift zum 25järigen Bestehen der NachschuleJugendvolkshochschule in Tingleff. Aabenraa: H. Mordieck, 1976. Henningsen, Lars N. ‘Kirkeliv og identitet: Dansk kirke i Sydslesvig 1945–2000’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 265–80. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———. 'Det danske mindretal 1955–2005: et samliv udvikles', in KøbenhavnBonn Erklæringerne 1955–2005: de dansk-tyske mindretalserklæringers baggrund, tilblivelse og virkning, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 291–338. Aabenraa: Institut for Grænseregionsforskning, 2005. Herreborg Thomsen, Birgitte. Danske sydslesvigske soldater i Danmark 1940–45. Flensborg: Studieafdelingen ved dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 2003. Hijiya, James A. ‘The Conservative 1960s’. Journal of American Studies 37, no. 2 (2003): 201–27. Hobsbawm, Eric J. Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ———. Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. London: Michael Joseph, 1994. Hopkins, Peter. Young People, Place and Identity. London: Routledge, 2010. Iriye, Akira. ‘Transnational History’. Contemporary European History 13, no. 2 (2004): 211–22. Jenkins, Richard. Social Identity. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004. Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. London: Vintage, 2010. Jürgensen, Kurt. Die Gründung des Landes Schleswig-Holstein nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg: der Aufbau der demokratischen Ordnung in Schleswig-Holstein unter dem ersten Ministerpräsidenten Theodor Steltzer 1945–1947. Neumünster: Wachholtz, 1969. Kehily, Mary Jane. Understanding Youth: Perspectives, Identities and Practices. London: SAGE in association with the Open University, 2007. Klatt, Martin. Flygtningene og Sydslesvigs danske bevægelse 1945–55. Flensborg: Studieafdelingen ved dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 2001. ———, ’De nationale mindretal i det grænseoverskridende samarbejde 1945–2005’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 427–47. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———. ‘Det danske mindretal 1945–1955: Hjemstavnsbevægelse – flæskedanskere – flygtningefjender?’. In En europæisk model? Nationale

Introduction  •  33

mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 135–56. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. Kristensen, Henrik Skov. Straffelejren – Fårhus, landssvigerne og retsopgøret. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busk, 2011. Kühl, Jørgen. ‘Dansk mindretalspolitik i Tyskland: Sydslesvigsk Vælgerforening’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 175–246. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———. ‘Det danske mindretals organisationer’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 469–503. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———, ed. En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———. ‘En europæisk model?: Den slesvigske erfaring og de nationale mindretal’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 351–453. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———, ed. København–Bonn Erklæringerne 1955–2005. Aabenraa: Institut for Grænseregionsforskning, 2005. Kühl, Jørgen and M. Weller. Minority Policy in Action: The Bonn–Copenhagen Declarations in a European Context, 1955–2005. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues, 2005. Lagree, Jean Charles. ‘Youth in Europe: Cultural Patterns of Transition’. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 41 (1996): 67–101. Lawler, Steph. Identity: Sociological Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity, 2008. Levi, Giovanni and Jean-Claude Schmitt. A History of Young People in the West. Cambridge, M.A.; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997. Lovell, Stephen. Generations in Twentieth-Century Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Loxtermann, Thomas. Das deutsch–dänische Grenzgebiet als Modell nationalstaatlicher Minderheitenpolitik?: die Minderheitenfrage in Schleswig von den Bonn-Kopenhagener Erklärungen von 1955 bis zum Beitritt Dänemarks zur EWG 1973. Munster: Lit, 2004. Lubowitz, Frank. ‘Det tyske mindretal i Danmark 1945–1955’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 115–33. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———. ‘Det tyske mindretals organisationer’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 455–68. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. ———. ‘Volkshochschule Tingleff: die ersten Jahrzehnte 1905–1945’. Schriften der Heimatkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Nordschleswig 2005, no. 80 (2005): 21–69. Marwick, Arthur. The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, c. 1958–c. 1974. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Mitterauer, Michael and Graeme Dunphy. A History of Youth. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: B. Blackwell, 1992.

34  •  Beyond the Border

Mogensen, Carsten R. ‘Dansk i hagekorsets skygge: det tredie rige og det danske midretal i Sydslesvig 1933–1939.’ Rev. version of thesis Copenhagens University, 1977., Studieafdelingen ved dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 1981. Noack, Johan Peter. Det tyske mindretal i Nordslesvig under besættelsen. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1974. ———. Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1920–1945. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 1989. ———. Det sydslesvigske grænsespørgsmål 1945–1947. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 1991. ———. Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1948–1955. Vol. 2. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforkning, 1997. Pain, Rachel. ‘Age, Generation and Lifecourse’. In Introducing Social Geographies, edited by Rachel Pain, 141–63. London: Arnold, 2001. Panayi, Panikos. An Ethnic History of Europe since 1945: Nations, States and Minorities. Harlow: Longman, 2000. Papadogiannis, Nikolaos. ‘Between Angelopoulos and The Battleship Potemkin: Cinema and the Making of Young Communists in Greece in the Initial Postdictatorship Period, 1974–81’. European History Quaterly 42, no. 2 (2012): 286–308. ———. ‘A (Trans) National Emotional Community? Greek Political Songs and the Politicisation of Greek Migrants in West Germany in the 1960s and early 1970s’. Contemporary European History 23, no. 4 (2014): 589–614. ———. ‘Red and Purple? Feminism and Young Greek Eurocommunists in the 1970s’. European Review of History-Revue Europeenne D Histoire 22, no. 1 (2015): 16–40. ———. ‘‘Keeping with Contemporary Times’: Social Tourism and West German Youth Hostel Organisations, 1950s–80s’. Journal of Contemporary History 51, no. 3 (2016): 1–28. Papadogiannis, Nikolaos. and S. Gehrig. ‘“The Personal is Political”: Sexuality, Gender and the Left in Europe during the 1970s’. European Review of HistoryRevue Europeenne D’Histoire 22, no. 1 (2015): 1–15. Passerini, Luisa. ‘Youth as a Metaphor for Social Change in Fascist Italy and America in the 1950s’. In A History of Young People in the West, edited by Giovanni Levi and Jean-Claude Schmitt, 283–303. Cambridge, MA; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997. ———. ‘Reviewed Work: The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, c. 1958–c. 1974 by Arthur Marwick’. The American Historical Review 104, no. 5 (1999): 1,642–43. Pedersen, Karen Margrethe. ‘German Minority Children in the Danish Border Region – Code-Switching and Interference’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 8, no. 1–2 (1987): 111–20. ———. Dansk sprog i Sydslesvig: det danske sprogs status inden for det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2000. ———. ‘A National Minority with a Transethnic Identity – the German Minority in Denmark’. In German Minorities in Europe, Ethnic Identity and

Introduction  •  35

Cultural Belonging, edited by Stefan Wolff, 15–28. Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2000. ———. ‘Languages and Identities in the National Minorities in the Danish– German Border Region and the Bonn–Copenhagen Declarations’. In Minority Policy in Action: The Bonn–Copenhagen Declarations in a European Context, 1955–2005, edited by Jørgen Kühl and M. Weller, 91–137. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues, 2005. Perks, Robert and Alistair Thomson. ‘Critical developments’. In The Oral History Reader, edited by Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson, 1–22. London: Routledge, 2016. ———, eds. The Oral History Reader. London: Routledge, 2016. Pospíšil, Filip. ‘Youth Cultures and the Disciplining of Czechoslovak Youth in the 1960s’. Social History 37, no. 4 (2012): 477–500. Prokkola, Eeva-Kaisa. ‘Unfixing Borderland Identity: Border Performances and Narratives in the Construction of Self’. Journal of Borderlands Studies 24, no. 3 (2009): 21–38. Saunier, Pierre-Yves. Transnational History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Schildt, Axel and Detlef Siegfried. Between Marx and Coca-Cola: Youth Cultures in Changing European Societies, 1960–1980. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. Siegfried, Detlef. ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger – Youth, Pop Culture, and the Nazi Past’. In Coping with the Nazi Past: West German Debates on Nazism and Generational Conflict, 1955–1975, edited by Philipp Gassert and Alan E. Steinweis, 144–60. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. Smith, Anthony D. ‘Were There Nations in Antiquity?’. In Power and the Nation in European History, edited by Len Scales and Oliver Zimmer, 34–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Solger, Reinhold. Memorial on the Schleswig-Holstein Question, Addressed to … B. R. Wood, Minister to the Court of Denmark, Copenhagen: New York, 1862. Steefel, Lawrence D. The Schleswig-Holstein Question. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. Stein, Lorenz von. La Question du Schleswig-Holstein. Paris, 1848. Svendsen, Nick. The First Schleswig-Holstein War, 1848–50. Solihull, England: Helion & Co., 2009. Thaler, Peter. Of Mind and Matter: The Duality of National Identity in the German– Danish Borderlands. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2009. Thompson, Paul Richard. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Toft, Gösta. ‘Slesvigsk Parti, 1945–2000’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland, 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 157–74. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning 2002. Vucetic, Radina. ‘Violence against the Antiwar Demonstrations of 1965–1968 in Yugoslavia: Political Balancing between East and West’. European History Quaterly 45, no. 2 (2015): 255–74. Warring, Anette. ‘Around 1968: Danish Historiography’. Scandinavian Journal of History 33, no. 4 (2008): 353–65.

36  •  Beyond the Border

Weitling, Günter. ‘Kirke og identitet: Tyske menigheder i Nordslesvig 1945–2000’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 247–63. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. Wenckstern, Otto von. Ten Years of the Schleswig-Holstein Question: An Abstract and Commentary. London: Mann Nephews, 1863. Wingender, Franz. Modstand i Sydslesvig: Før og efter 1945. Flensborg: Studieafdelingen ved dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 1988. Wyn, Johanna and Rob D. White. Rethinking Youth. London: Sage, 1997. Zahra, Tara. ‘The “Minority Problem” and National Classification in the French and Czechoslovak Borderlands’. Contemporary European History 17, no. 2 (2008): 137–65.

O1 Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds

The Minorities during Conflicts and Aftermath, pre-1955

Schleswig was one of the regions where a new border was drawn in the aftermath of the Great War. Germany’s defeat, and the subsequent Versailles Treaty, resulted in a reorganisation of Europe; nations were to have their own states, and the borders to be drawn on the principles of democracy and national self-determination. In the former duchy of Schleswig, as in the other contested border regions, two plebiscites determined the new border between Denmark and Germany. On 15 June 1920, the new border, a separation of the two states with no historical precedence, was a reality. It stretched some 65 kilometres from Flensburg Bay, the town of Flensburg located just south of it, across the Jutland peninsular to the North Sea. Despite the unequivocal results of the plebiscites, a German majority south of the new border and a Danish one north of it, minorities on both sides were unavoidable. The new border created the Danish minority in Germany and the German minority in Denmark. Furthermore, the new border created two new regions: North Schleswig and South Schleswig. The concepts of a northern, middle and a part of southern Schleswig existed before 1920, but they were all vaguely defined. In the Danish tradition, all of Schleswig was Sønderjylland (Southern Jutland). In the German tradition, Schleswig was tied to the neighbouring region of Holstein. The positions of the two new minorities in the two new regions differed from each other. Until 1920, the Danish minority in all of Schleswig had been one large group in the northernmost part of the Second German Empire. As the plebiscite in North Schleswig clearly

38  •  Beyond the Border

Figure 1.1 Pro-German plebiscite poster, 1920. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  39

Figure 1.2 Pro-Danish plebiscite poster, 1920. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

40  •  Beyond the Border

showed, Danish-minded Schleswigers constituted the absolute majority in the area that was annexed by Denmark. The part of the minority that remained south of the border was small and did not constitute the majority in any location of the new region of South Schleswig. The German-minded in North Schleswig made up a much stronger and larger group. Three of the four large towns in North Schleswig had German majorities and, in many villages in the rural area just north of the new border, the number of German-minded equalled or outnumbered the Danish-minded. Only after the Second World War did the balance shift again. The positions of the Danish and German minorities after the Second World War are best understood as

Map 1.1. Map of 1920 Plebiscites. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  41

inversions of the two groups’ positions in the preceding decades. After the war, the strong and separatist German minority in North Schleswig was stripped of its resources and threatened by internal divisions and outside pressure. The Danish minority in South Schleswig experienced the opposite development. It exploded in size and defined new, separatist aspirations. Minority-youth experiences were embedded in this context: In North Schleswig before 1945, young people were a crucial part of the national mobilisation of the minority. After 1945, all German-minority educational institutions as well as youth and student associations were closed down. In South Schleswig, only a few Danish institutions for youths existed before 1945, whereas after the end of the war, schools, youth clubs and other leisure activities for youths boomed in South Schleswig. Whereas the circumstances for both minorities changed substantially, some overarching characteristics of minority identity in the border region remained the same. Even though the positions of the two groups inverted, their loyalty to the kin-state remained strong and unquestioned. Furthermore, the legitimacy of the border was still challenged, and the sentiment of being arbitrarily separated from the nation on the other side of the border continued.

The Unexpected Danish Invigoration and Danish-Minority Youth before 1955 Before 1945, the Danish minority comprised only a small group in South Schleswig, concentrated mostly in and around the town of Flensburg. Despite the town’s close historical ties to Denmark, Flensburg voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining part of Germany in the plebiscites of 1920. The actual number of Danish-minded people in South Schleswig in 1920 could be contested but, on the day of voting, 8,944 votes were cast in favour of Denmark.1 This figure amounted to roughly 25 percent of Flensburg’s population. Outside Flensburg, the number of Danish votes was limited: in the entire second zone, not including Flensburg, around 3,000 votes were cast in favour of Denmark. The overall result in the second zone was 51,724 German votes against 12,800 Danish ones. A plebiscite in the rest of South Schleswig was planned but cancelled as a German majority proved inevitable. Taking into consideration that also some non-residents of both nationalities were eligible to vote in the plebiscite, a realistic estimate of the Danish minority’s size in all of South Schleswig in 1920 would be between 12,000 and 15,000.

42  •  Beyond the Border

Although Flensburg remaining German was a disappointment for Denmark, the more realistic Danish positions regarded the plebiscites as a success;2 few would have thought it realistic to hope for a future change of the border in Denmark’s favour. The minority of 1920 lost ground rather quickly. In his study of the Danish minority, 1920–45, Johan Peter Noack argues that ‘even in locations where the Danish movement was strongest, it was in fact weak’.3 Noack has analysed Danish associations in Flensburg, and he shows that the number of memberships of Danish associations decreased gradually from 1920 to 1945. He estimates that Danish associations in Flensburg had roughly 4,500 members in total in 1920; by 1944/45, this number had dropped to 1,500.4 Examining membership figures of young people under the age of 25, Noack shows that these remained relatively stable throughout the period, at 700 members;5 however, whereas minority youths retained stable figures, the minority in general was a group in decline. The largest pre-1945 Danish youth association in Flensburg was Flensborg Ungdomsforening (FUF), founded in 1919. Despite its long history, the FUF archive contains only two documents from the period before 1945: two annual reports documenting activities in 1935 and 1936/7. The two reports reveal little about Danish-minority youth; they offer only glimpses of membership figures and superficial indications of the nature of activities. It seems, however, that with memberships of the association at around 200, FUF would have been large enough to offer a sense of Danish community for young people in Flensburg. The report from 1935 states that FUF had 217 active members; that 29 new members had joined the association that year; and 44 members had left it.6 The association appears to have focused on leisure activities: the report states that activities in FUF included lecture nights, gymnastics, sporting activities, folk dancing and study groups.7 According to the report from 1936/7, only one new member joined FUF that year, whereas 37 members left and the total number of members dropped from the previous year to 189.8 It seems, however, that this was a development to be expected. Despite the decline of membership figures, the chairman expressed satisfaction with the association in 1936/7. The second report includes no mention of the activities of FUF, but the chairman has added that ‘work [was] carried out in a satisfactory manner’.9 The Danish secondary school in Flensburg, Duborg-Skolen, was another main institution for Danish-minded youths. Founded in 1920, the school was located in the northern and most Danish part of town, on the location of the former royal Danish caste of Duborg, after

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  43

which the school was named.10 Upon the completion of the new school building in 1922, the headmaster, Andreas Hansen, was quoted in the Danish-minority daily newspaper, Flensborg Avis: We hope that Danish children will study here – year after year – and that after their time here, they will go out in life to assume a purpose that serves their breed and spirit. We have no aversions against the German language – on the contrary – and we will seek to also nourish the German language. But this school is Danish – it is built by the Danish people and its language is Danish. Therefore, it is also self-evident that in this school the Danish language and a Danish spirit stand above everything.11

Headmaster Hansen’s statement communicated that Duborg-Skolen was rooted in the Danish community and that it sought to promote the Danish language and a particular Danish spirit. At the same time, the school did not appear to seek isolation from the German majority. The fact that Hansen stated the school would ‘nourish German language’ also suggests that the minority was aware that their community was too small to function independently, and that good relations with the German majority were essential. Duborg-Skolen depended on connections with Denmark too. Not only did some students come from North Schleswig, travelling daily across the border to Flensburg,12 the teachers, too, were overwhelmingly Danes from Denmark, often from North Schleswig. Henrik Mink has analysed lists of early employees at Duborg-Skolen and concluded that ‘the typical teacher was young, a recent graduate and Danish’.13 According to Mink, finding enough qualified teachers in South Schleswig was simply impossible, considering the minority’s limited size.14 Furthermore, according to Mink, the Danish teachers offered, ‘a welcome blow of Danish culture in a challenged daily life marked by social isolation from the surrounding German-minded community’.15 Apart from its regular education activities, Duborg-Skolen also became a place where the Danish community in Flensburg gathered, often to attend lectures given by guests brought to Flensburg from Denmark.16 In fact, the Danish minority in Flensburg more generally had strong ties to Danes in North Schleswig and among the members of Danish associations in Flensburg, the largest and most stable subgroup consisted of those who originated from North Schleswig and had moved to Flensburg, often for employment reasons.17 Throughout the period 1920–45, according to Noack’s estimates, North-Schleswigborn Danes in Flensburg constituted between 14 and 22 percent of the Danish minority.18 The Danish minority in South Schleswig could not realistically hope for a border revision before 1945, and the consequence of that appeared

44  •  Beyond the Border

to be a pragmatist stance towards the German majority. Even after the National Socialists came to power in 1933, the Danish minority’s position towards the new regime provides a final example of the ways in which the pre-1945 Danish-minded youth in North Schleswig navigated between loyalties to the nation and to the host state. The Danish minority managed to negotiate that minority youths were exempted from being members of the Hitler Jugend and Bund Deutscher Mädel, compulsory for all other young people in Germany.19 The experience of war, however, was just as much a part of Danish minority life, as it was for any other German citizen; the Danish minority did not seek exemption from military service on behalf of young Danish-minded men, and it did not encourage young men to desert.20 Following Germany’s defeat in 1945, the position of the Danish movement in South Schleswig changed fundamentally. The end of the Second World War also became the end of the Danish minority’s decline and confinement to Flensburg. Immediately after capitulation, thousands of South Schleswigers joined the Danish movement, its numbers reaching over 70,000 in 1947, only two years after the end of the war. The change was colossal and somewhat unexpected. The underlying causes for this change of national identities in Schleswig have been interpreted differently. Many contemporaries assigned the change in national self-identification to opportunism, claiming Danish identity was seen, in particular by Germans, as an easy way to disassociate themselves from the Nazi regime.21 Others pointed to a link between Danish identity and left-leaning political positions, perceiving political identities to be more important than national ones. Left-wing Schleswigers did overwhelmingly vote to stay in Germany in 1920 and, according to this interpretation, they realised only after the war that socialist reforms were more likely to happen in Denmark than Germany.22 A third explanation links the nationality shift to the arrival of more than 100,000 German refugees in Schleswig following the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe. The sudden presence of the German expellees from the east in South Schleswig, in many ways dissimilar from the local population, may have caused German-minded locals to feel more affiliated with a Danish national identity.23 The many factors that contribute to explaining the shift aside, the minority’s own explanation at the time was the argument that Schleswig was ancient Danish land and that the nationality shift was a legitimate and genuine re-discovery of the true national identity and heritage of all natives to the region. From the minority’s point of view, changing one’s own national identity was neither opportunism

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  45

nor treachery. This argument was not constructed in South Schleswig alone: in Denmark, and mainly in Copenhagen, thousands of Danes began taking an interest in South Schleswig issues, and publications about the South Schleswig issues boomed. Before 1945, for example, only a few articles and books about South Schleswig were published in Denmark each year;24 after 1945, the number increased significantly.25 The arguments about Schleswig’s ancient connections to Denmark were found in many of the post-1945 books, articles and pamphlets. For example, a pamphlet from 1945, which claimed the population in Schleswig was tied to the region and that the region essentially was Danish, argued: Approximately 80 percent of the population is of old, Danish breed. Their customs and traditions, and in particular their spirit and character, is Danish and not German. Regardless of whether they speak Danish or German, the Schleswigers of today do not feel Prussian but Schleswigean.26

Other arguments about Schleswig’s true belonging to the Danish nation were even more assertive. In an article with the title ‘Soil, blood and subconscious national Danish testimonies’, the author argued: To the question of whether South Schleswig is ancient Danish land, which we as Danes should rightfully claim, we can only answer yes … Schleswig, and thus South Schleswig too, should in all possible ways be considered ancient Danish land. Place names, family names, customs, behaviour, tales and faith all indicate Danish origin. It is therefore not only our right but also our duty that we work as hard as possible to liberate the South Schleswigers from German oppression.27

For some, one way of emphasising the Danish-ness of South Schleswig was to denounce the German presence, and the German traditional understanding of Schleswig and its connection to Holstein. In a large publication from 1955, which reflected upon the decade after the war, one contributor wrote: Even in German times, the Eider River was always a border between the German and the Danish races. Towns on this river had practically no connections with one another and there were no marriages across it … The two duchies Schleswig and Holstein were not populated by people of the same race. Only idiots call themselves Schleswig-Holsteiners. It is a conjunction between two completely different things.28

Young people in Denmark became engaged with the South Schleswig question too. In 1946, for example, a Copenhagen-based youth association, Dansk-Nordisk Ungdomsforbund, (Danish-Nordic Youth Association) put it this way: ‘Let us assert to the world and ourselves

46  •  Beyond the Border

that this land was robbed from us … Our goal must be: Schleswig reconquered, all of Schleswig’.29 Officially, the Danish minority adopted these positions and did not address the identity shifts from German to Danish as anything else but genuine. The children and young people who became part of the minority due to the active choice of their families seemed to accept the argument too. A woman interviewed, born in 1936 in Flensburg, explained in 2013 that ‘one simply remembered that we had been Danish’.30 Another woman, born in 1943 in Eiderstedt, the southwesternmost corner of South Schleswig, explained in 2014 that her mother described her choice to become Danish with a feeling that ‘it was as if several layers of wallpaper were removed, and suddenly we realised that we were Danish’.31 Statements such as the above are crucial for understanding how a Danish-minority identity evolved and for understanding what shaped young people’s experiences in the wake of the Second World War. National identity was seen as predefined in people, regardless of whether they were aware of it or not. Before 1945, the Danish minority in South Schleswig was closely linked to North Schleswig and to an identity that transgressed the 1920 border. But the national belonging of South Schleswigers after 1945 was different. It was not conceptualised regionally. Rather, the minority in South Schleswig were included in an idea of the Danish nation, defined – mostly by nationally romantic groups in Copenhagen – as something coherent and uniquely different from the German nation. The fact that, by now, the overwhelming majority of the minority had not identified as Danes was simply ignored, at least officially. In the private sphere, many retained their connections to both German culture and the German majority. Oral history evidence suggests that, in reality, relations – in particular of children and young people – were much more blurred and not always contentious. A man born in 1936 in Schwansen, a peninsular on the east coast of South Schleswig between the town of Schleswig and Eckernförde, explained in 2013 that, in his family, the shift from German to Danish was never discussed and that, in his village, there were no hostilities between Danish and German children.32 But opposite experiences have been described as well – for example, by the woman from Eiderstedt, who explained that a group of friends in the village, one day, no longer wanted to play with her because she attended the Danish school.33 In addition, some Germans labelled newcomers to the Danish minority Speck Dänen (bacon Danes), suggesting that these people only became Danish in order to receive food parcels from

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  47

Denmark in the first years after the war when Germany experienced shortages of food.34 One direct consequence of the Danish minority’s reinvigoration was the Danish challenge of the border’s location: from 1945 onwards, the minority adopted a redrawing of the border as its ultimate goal. In retrospect, a shift of the border was only a real political possibility in the first year after the liberation.35 As the occupying power in the north-western part of Germany, the British government offered the Danish government in Copenhagen to shift the border further south and exchange populations; in the same way that other borders in Europe were redrawn and national minorities were relocated in order to prevent future conflicts on the basis of nationality. The Danish government declined the British offer, and no Danish politician since then has officially called for a border revision. The Danish positions on a change of the border and exchange of populations were in fact contradictory: the reason for rejecting annexation immediately was rooted in the fear that a large German minority would form a fifth column in Denmark. But the reasons for rejecting expulsions of the German minority derived from the idea that in reality they were Danes.36 Despite the lack of support from politicians in Copenhagen, the Danish minority held onto the idea that South Schleswig should again be part of Denmark. Debates about annexation, however, took various forms. Should an annexation be attempted straight away, and followed up subsequently by efforts of cultural Danification? Or should annexation be implemented only if a Danification of South Schleswig actually proved to be enduring? The minority’s reinvigoration and newly defined separatism thus became the axis around which all activities and institutions for Danish-minded youths were structured. After the war, the Danish efforts in South Schleswig were massive. Sponsored mainly by the Danish state and by organisations in Denmark collecting donations, the Danish engagement in South Schleswig was reinforced by a number of nationally idealistic Danes who moved from Denmark to South Schleswig after the war. In this process of learning to be Danish, education and other activities for children and young people were central and so the number of Danish schools in South Schleswig rose from nine in 1945 to eighty-eight in 1955.37 Despite the growth of the minority in the post-war era, DuborgSkolen remained the only secondary school in South Schleswig. Its student numbers, however, increased almost three-fold, from 300 in 1946 to 677 in 1948, when post-war numbers peaked.38 After 1948, numbers decreased gradually until they reached 365 in 1955.39

48  •  Beyond the Border

According to a personal memoir written in 1995, a former student remembered his secondary education from 1954–57 as ‘the closest to paradise on earth that [he] [had] experienced’.40 He emphasised that teachers would lower their voices rather than raise them if the class was unruly, and that all teachers were ‘good, exciting and very different’.41 He also remembered two traditions that developed at Duborg-Skolen. One was that the students walked in groups around the big pear tree in the playground, always in a counter-clockwise direction. The other was that every morning all students assembled in the grand hall to sing hymns; according to the former student ‘it was beautiful, and it created a feeling of community – and as an added bonus, a vast knowledge of songs and hymns’.42 It seemed the teachers, often younger people themselves, generally perceived their work in South Schleswig more as a calling or lifestyle rather than simply a job. An interviewee, born in 1936, described in 2013 that her middle-school Danish teacher, a woman in her early twenties, was also the volunteer swimming instructor for young Danish-minded girls. The same interviewee remembered that, when she joined the Danish girl scouts in the late 1940s, their scout leader was another young teacher from Denmark and she hosted the girl scouts meetings privately in the rented room where she lived.43 A similar description was offered in 1955 in a reflection on Danish-minority schools in the decade after 1945: How did we get teachers for all our schools? The [British] military government permitted that teachers from Denmark could travel down here. The teachers were filled with great dedication and idealism when they came from up north to conditions which were not normal. Bad classrooms and children tormented by war, often 60 to 70 of them in one classroom. In addition, it was impossible for them to get a place to live because of all the refugees. But spirits were high both day and night. They also voluntarily taught the students’ parents Danish in the evening. Joy and expectations were everywhere.44

The statements explaining the dedication of teachers from Denmark should be viewed with some caution: one is a reflection on a situation more than sixty years previously, and the second stems from a heavily biased Danish publication. The statements should be seen as a description of the ways in which the post-war years were remembered. The Danish minority created a memory of this period as an idealist one of true dedication to the Danish cause. Perhaps in contrast to what was before, or what came after. Apart from education, leisure activities were a crucial part of the Danish youth work. Participating in minority-organised leisure

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  49

activities ensured that minority youths were exposed to Danish language and culture outside school hours. Besides scouting, activities included, for example, sports, amateur theatre and folk dancing. Retuning again to the documents in FUF’s archive, a report from 1948 states that the association now included a badminton team, a choir and an amateur theatre group. The report also states that ‘the entire association participate[d] in folk dancing’ and that ‘all members of the association [spoke] Danish.45 By the 1950s, Danish leisure activities for youths were consolidated in the umbrella organisation Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger (SdU). SdU monitored all the Danish leisure activities and youth associations in South Schleswig, including FUF. The individual clubs and associations filled out standardised forms, reporting back to SdU their membership figures and activities46. Although we know little about FUF from 1937 until the end of the war, the information about FUF in the early 1950s, as interpreted through these forms, reveals that the association experienced a growth in both membership figures and activities. The form from 1952 states that ‘the association [had] experienced a noticeable growth of around 50 percent’.47 The form from 1954/5 shows that the growth of FUF continued and it was added to the form that ‘a small, dedicated group has been very supportive of all activities. We have really benefitted from our “open house” days’.48

Figure 1.3 Danish-minority folk dancing, late 1940s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

50 • Beyond the Border

Sport was perhaps the main activity through which young people could associate with the minority. SdU encompassed Danish-minded sport clubs and associations in Flensburg and the rest of South Schleswig. In 1954/5, the annual report of one of the largest sport clubs in South Schleswig, Dansk Gymnastik Forening (DGF), states that the club had close to 400 members.49 The association wrote as an additional comment: Our work in the association is thriving both internally and externally. We are growing in all disciplines apart from handball. Tournament results are very good – in particular in football! Massive demand for football for boys! … The second largest club in South Schleswig – German clubs included – Only FL 08 [is] bigger! [We] have created a social club for youths that meet one afternoon a week, visited by around 50–60 per day. [They] play table tennis, bob, watch movies, and more.50

In the countryside, however, conditions were somewhat different than in Flensburg. The Danish minority grew rapidly all over South Schleswig but, in the parts of the region furthest away from the border, the minority was always smaller and more scattered. Furthermore, the young people who did not attend secondary education in Flensburg, worked or held apprenticeships, most of which were outside the Danish-minority sphere. In such cases, young people were more isolated from other Danish-minded people, and leisure activities often became the primary association with the minority, as this interviewee (born 1943) explained in 2014: While I was an apprentice, I was very active in the Danish youth associations. That was good. We played a lot of sports and it was made possible that we could travel to Vejle [in Denmark]. That was really good. When we were together, all of us from Eiderstedt, we were many. Otherwise, one was actually quite lonely.51

In 1952, SdU also started publishing a magazine specifically for Danishminority youths. The magazine, Treklangen, was published a couple of times a year, and it included an activity calendar of all Danish social and sporting events all over South Schleswig. Treklangen connected young people with the minority and the Danish language, especially those living in the peripheries of South Schleswig, as a letter from a Danish youth in 1954 explains: Three years ago when I left the Danish school and started my apprenticeship in a small village, [Treklangen] did not exist. Where I live, there is no Danish youth association nearby, so I am happy I discovered [Treklangen] … In a small village like mine everybody knows everybody, so everybody knew that I was a so-called ‘bacon Dane’. In the beginning,

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds • 51

a lot of people ignored me … I did not give up my Danish-ness, but I tried to be friendly to everybody. Now I have a good relationship with the people here.52

Treklangen featured articles about border related issues, current debates and opinions. It was edited by the SdU and thus was not a voice of young people themselves. Nevertheless, the publication provides insights into the position of SdU on various themes: even if the above letter was never really drafted by a young Danish South Schleswiger, it clearly shows the position of the magazine. Moreover, it provides a picture of the kinds of activity, positions and views that SdU wished to communicate to young people – for example in this article about folk dancing from 1954: Folk dancing is an indispensable part of our youth work. Indispensable? Why? Because those of us who love youth, and who want to shape young people and show them a way to a rich and happy life must structure our leisure activities in order to give young people positive values … Many of us believe that folk dancing can create an atmosphere that elevates the spirits of young people.53

Besides attempting to influence young people’s values and activity choices, Treklangen also communicated clearly the ways in which the minority understood the place of young people vis-à-vis the struggle between Danish and German identities in the border region. One such article was published in Treklangen in 1954 by SdU chairman, H. Tychsen, discussing the 1954 Schleswig-Holstein election. Tychsen feared that the Danish-minority party, Südschleswigscher Wählerverein (SSW), would lose even more votes in the election; the party lost its seat in the parliament by only 1,000 votes. Tychsen’s message to young people following the election was clear: he thought that there was ‘reason to be happy about the election result’54 but that the Danish youth should be aware that obligations followed. Tychsen presented two arguments that showed his position on young people. First, he argued that ‘young people should not take part in politics but should belong in the non-political youth associations’.55 Second, he stated that young people should be aware that it was in the youth associations that ‘the foundations of future, solid political work [was] laid’.56 Tychsen finished by asserting the position he wanted Danish youth to hold. He wrote: Let us continue to show that we are the stronger part by showing patience and respect for the opinions of others but firmness of our own ones. Let us suck out nutrition and power from this result and continue working for our case and strengthen ourselves so that we can resist

52 • Beyond the Border

coming attacks on us. There are reasons to be happy and proud but no reason to gloat. Remember, ‘we have a country to win or to lose’.57

By the mid 1950s, however, the Danish minority had stopped growing and many who had joined the movement in the early days after the war were no longer part of the minority. Returning to another of Noack’s studies of the Danish minority, focusing on the period until 1955, he estimates that the number of Danish-minded had dropped from its highest levels of 75,000 in the late 1940s to around 25,000 by the mid 1950s.58 Still, the minority was much larger in the mid 1950s than it was before 1945. What is more, the minority had shrunk slower than it had grown. By 1955, 1945 was still the turning point that had invigorated the minority and led to a period of the mobilisation of young people in the national effort to secure an expansion of Danish culture in South Schleswig so that, ultimately, the border could be moved. In combination, Treklangen, the education system, SdU and the youth and sports clubs constituted important influences on the Danish-minority youth by the mid 1950s. Their message to young people was clear and focused: Danish national identity was seen as the true national identity of all Schleswigers and the greater goal of the Danish minority was a change of the border. Despite the fact that most Danish-minded people in the mid 1950s had not been part of the minority before 1945, the minority idealised seeing the themselves in opposition to the majority. For some, this ideal did not match the realities of their daily lives as most people continued to speak German at home and did not live in isolation from the German majority. This incongruity between ideal and practice characterised the situation north of the border in the German minority in North Schleswig too.

The Tumultuous German Minority and Its Youth before 1955 1945 was a turning point for the German minority in North Schleswig too, albeit a different one. Since the plebiscite in 1920, the German minority contested the legitimacy of the new border and agitated for it to be moved south. In particular, after Hitler’s coming to power in 1933, the minority hoped that all of North Schleswig would be reannexed into the Third Reich. Upon capitulation of Germany in 1945, however, the German minority faced a showdown with the Danish state and majority population. German-minority institutions were closed down, and many people were arrested and imprisoned. After 1945, the minority’s future existence was severely threatened and only slowly and gradually restructured.

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  53

The German minority descended mostly from regionally native sympathisers of the Schleswig-Holstein movement but also in part from Prussians or other Germans who settled in North Schleswig between 1864 and 1920. Overwhelmingly – in everyday life – the minority shared many cultural traits with the Danish-majority population: most spoke the regional dialect (Low Danish), a dialect shared with the Danish-minded majority population. In most families, High German was the language of organisation and culture. The German nationality in North Schleswig was also tied to class: the minority was strongest among the bourgeoisie in the four large towns in North Schleswig (Haderslev, Aabenraa, Sønderborg and Tønder), and among the big land-owning farmers.59 Several influential individuals within the minority group came from families whose connections to the region went back several centuries. Despite the minority’s strong ties to the region, it challenged the technicalities of the plebiscite. The minority disputed that votes in North Schleswig were counted en bloc, meaning that all constituencies in the region were regarded as one zone.60 This way of counting resulted in a 75 percent Danish majority, but the larger towns and southernmost rural areas presented much higher concentrations of German votes. In consequence, several constituencies within the zone were ceded to Denmark, despite having clear German majorities. Immediately after 1920, a revision of the border became a central ambition for the minority’s political party. The new border led to serious economic problems too.61 Particularly in the larger towns, the minority was successful in trade, business and commerce. Adapting their trade to new markets, however, was problematic. Flensburg was now located just south of the border in Germany, forcing North Schleswigers to seek new connections to replace the old established ones. In addition to this, the interwar global economic instability contributed to the overall experience that North Schleswig was far worse off in Denmark than in Germany. The economic problems were not exclusive to the German minority but affected the region overall; however, the economic problems fuelled the minority’s resistance to the new border. Young people grew up in a culture in which it was believed that the border was unfairly drawn, and North Schleswig’s unification with Denmark was communicated as an injustice. This caused the minority to seek isolation from the Danish majority and create its own institutions and associations. Important institutions for young people, such as education and leisure activities, were organised clearly along national lines. The minority attempted to secure separation from

54  •  Beyond the Border

Danes in as many aspects of life as possible. Young people were made to understand that they too played an important part of this national struggle, as stated in the magazine for youths, Junge Front, in 1940: In the years of 1919 and 1920, when the dark shadows of Versailles lowered on our Heimat, it was mostly and firstly youth that called for unity and defence against the dangers that faced us; in the countryside, the youth organisations, and in the towns, the sport organisations.62

The publication Junge Front offers several insights into pre-1945 German-minority notions and conceptions of young people’s roles in society. The magazine was published monthly from 1937 to 1945 and consisted mainly of politicised articles, and a calendar of activities for minority youth in North Schleswig. Junge Front frequently featured articles declaring the minority’s loyalty to Germany and the German nation. From 1939, reports from the German war effort and war-related discussions became more regular, but also the minority’s relationship with the Danes was discussed. Contrary to how Germans perceived other national groups elsewhere in Europe, the German minority in Denmark did not perceive the Danes as an enemy that should be defeated. In the issue of Junge Front from May 1941, for example, C.J. Roth wrote that no matter the outcomes of the war, ‘the national struggle between Danish and German in the border region [would] continue’.63 Roth hoped, however, that the nature of this national struggle would change. He argued: There are reasons to hope that it (the national struggle) will be lifted from the currently unpleasant atmosphere, charged with unbearable tension, to a higher level where – in a knightly competition – the national forces of both nations will inspire higher performances.64

Another article in the same issue indicates the acceptance of the presence of both Germans and Danes in North Schleswig. It argues that, as ‘Danes and Germans [lived] together in the Heimat’, it was ‘natural to show’ whether one was one or the other.65 As described in the article, however, some Danes apparently had begun stitching Union Jacks or stars-and-stripes labels onto the inside of their collars. When feeling safe to do so – presumably when no German soldiers or officials were around – they would raise their collar and display these labels. To that practice, Junge Front comments: This is how little these people regard their own banner. Or do they no longer have a sense of national belonging? We want to say to these people loud and clear: we know that we have to live together with the Danes, and we make the effort to make this neighbour-ship bearable;

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds • 55

Figure 1.4 Cover of Junge Front, 1945. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

56  •  Beyond the Border

Englishmen are our enemy and Americans are their helpers, and we will use our right to treat them like that.66

The fact that the German minority perceived Britain and the USA as their enemies much more than the Danes is also made clear in another Junge Front article. The August 1943 edition of the magazine discusses some young people’s growing fascination with jazz and swing, the article seeing the popularity of such music as a threat to a nation. The article argues that ‘the life of a people is an eternal struggle between those forces that come from blood and soil and those who through the neglect of the spirit threaten the national roots of a people and make it sick’.67 According to the article, the healthy life of a nation is rooted in country life; swing and jazz music were seen as ‘urban Negro-culture, the conscious emphasis on femininity and the unmanly, the vulgar and the vicious that damage the roots of healthy, rural youth’.68 Junge Front raged against a Copenhagen newspaper, Politiken, which had started advertising swing and jazz music in the Danish capital, and it asserted: An irresponsible and profit-oriented urban press with its disgusting array of American-style, sensationalist ads, contributes to spreading the negative spirit to a growing number of people, including people in our Heimat. We know that the war compromises our morals, but we believe that the forceful introduction of American Negro culture in our Heimat and in all of Denmark is altogether more damaging than the war.69

Overall, the German minority’s relationship with the Danish majority nation should be seen as a complex one. On the one hand, the minority respected the Danes as an equal competitor, whose presence in North Schleswig it accepted. On the other, however, the minority did not fundamentally accept the border of 1920 and its status as a minority. The minority acknowledged the Danish-minded population in North Schleswig and it idealised the struggle between the two nations. The Danish population acknowledged the minority too. From 1920 until the beginning of the Second World War, the Danish majority in general, and the Danish authorities in particular, accepted the presence of the German minority in North Schleswig and accommodated its wishes of cultural autonomy. Concerning education, for example, the minority were able to establish and run their own private schools. In addition to this, the Danish state offered German-speaking branches of public schools all over North Schleswig, where any such were in demand. 70 The Danish state provided German education in the countryside if more than 25 percent or the families requested it and that this amounted

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds • 57

to at least ten children. In the towns, the state facilitated Danish and German branches in all public schools.71 This made German education available throughout the region, in fifty-nine private schools, twentynine public schools and in one upper-secondary school. In the early 1940s, just short of four thousand students in North Schleswig were enrolled in some form of German education. Despite the liberal policies of the Danish state towards the minority, the German-minded never regarded their position within the Danish state as desirable. Most shared the goal of a border revision, and worked actively for a German presence in North Schleswig to be maintained or expanded. Hitler’s ascension to power in 1933 intensified these sentiments. Gradually, the National Socialist fraction within the minority group took control of most of the minority’s activities. This marginalised completely other positions within the group. The Nazi permeation of the minority had strong implications on the lives of young people too. From the late 1930s onwards, activities for young people were structured increasingly to mirror the organisations in Germany itself. The North Schleswig organisations Deutsche Jungen- und Mädchenshaft Nordschleswig closely resembled Hitler Jugend and Bund Deutscher Mädel in Germany. Similar to their ReichGerman counterparts the organisations called upon young people to be aware of their tasks and responsibilities: Our young people must realise, that there are things more important than comfortable evenings and afternoons, than cafes and cinemas. They must feel that precisely they, in the border region, have as their task to lead the new times to breakthrough and victory.72

The German minority in North Schleswig – like other German minorities elsewhere in Europe – therefore hoped that the German army would re-annex North Schleswig. When the German army entered Denmark, on 9 April 1940, it was therefore not seen as the beginning of an occupation but as the end to one, as described in Junge Front: German soldiers in North Schleswig! That means cheering, dear friends, for all who can say ‘our soldiers’, for all that belong to the German people … We are now under the Führer’s protection! The feeling is so overwhelming that many many [sic.] tears ran down the faces of young and old this morning.73

Even though the occupation of Denmark did not lead to the annexation of North Schleswig with Germany, the minority organised young people to work actively for the German war effort. Particularly after the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the minority began to recruit

58  •  Beyond the Border

young men to volunteer at the front.74 The encouragement to volunteer continued until the very end of the war, and even in March 1945, the minority called upon all men born between 1909 and 1926 to enlist.75 The reality for German-minded youths in North Schleswig during the war was complex. On the one hand, they were part of a vigorous and determined minority – on the other hand, young men were expected to volunteer in a war fought far away from their homes. By the time defeat became obvious, the separatist minority leadership had proved a failure: in their complete support of National Socialist Germany, they compromised the relationship between minority and majority so much that the future of the German minority in North Schleswig looked very uncertain. As soon as the German occupation of Denmark ended, in 1945, the showdown with the German minority in North Schleswig began. This led to mass-arrests; around 3,500 were arrested, of whom 3,000 were sentenced. This corresponded to roughly one in four of all Germanminority men.76 The large number of arrests meant that many Germanminority children and youths experienced the arrest and imprisonment of family members. Such experiences are difficult to uncover, but oral histories can shed some light. A woman born in 1938 to a Germanminded family recalled in 2014 the arrest of her father, as follows: As I answered the door, two young men stood outside, each with their automatic weapon … they asked: ‘Is your father home?’ And so I nodded … my father then swiftly passed me, went with them and he was gone … The Danes hated the Germans in 1945 … only the German minority was left in Denmark because the soldiers were long gone … they [the minority] were the objects of their [Danish] hatred and if he [the father] had made one attempt to escape they could have shot him dead.77

In this case, the level of detail recalled almost seventy years later tells us that these experiences stuck with the individual and became part of her identity. Furthermore, this oral history interview focused on everyday life in the 1950s and 1960s and not specifically on the experiences of the wartime and post-war period. The fact that the conversation drifted to the chaotic period accentuates the importance of this experience. The woman’s father was ultimately trialled and convicted and served time in a prison; but even those German-minded who distanced themselves from Nazism faced danger too, as a man, also born in 1938, explained in another oral history interview, in 2013: We lived on a farm in Broager, not far from Flensburg Bay … in the German minority there were some organisations that really were Nazi … but my parents kept themselves away from all that. And then we had

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds • 59

a neighbour on one side and a neighbour on the other, and they were both members of the resistance movement, and my parents knew that very well. They were not friends but they had a good relationship with each other, and I will say this: that they actually protected my parents when it came to the trials. It was quite dangerous to be German in May ‘45.78

Local resistance movements were in charge of this showdown only in the period immediately after the capitulation. After a formal judicial system was reinstalled, all those who were arrested were given individual trials and sentences. Despite clear anti-German sentiments all over Denmark in 1945, the government aimed to solve the situation in a way that adhered to the country’s legal principles. From the general point of view of the minority, however, the application of ex post facto laws challenged the legitimacy of the trials. The minority disputed the verdict of guilty for acts that had not been criminal or illegal at the time. The conviction of young men who had volunteered to serve in an armed group of civilians in North Schleswig, and who had never actually seen battle, was particularly disputed. The perception that all Schleswigers in reality were Danes, which was used to explain the nationality shifts south of the border, was important vis-à-vis the German minority north of the border too. The Danes viewed the German minority first and foremost as Danish citizens. Their collaboration with Germany was thus seen as treason. This understanding of the minority was tied to the nineteenth-century Danish nationalist view that Schleswig and its population was essentially Danish. This Danish view never perceived the minority as genuinely German but rather as Germanised Danes. The North Schleswig German self-perception was very different. From their point of view, they were Germans and the 1920 division of Schleswig was an arbitrary division of a historical region. Although the minority de jure had been Danish citizens since 1920, de facto their loyalty had remained with the German nation. The minority argued that the Danish position never acknowledged the conflict of loyalty between feelings of national belonging and citizenship, and they rejected the idea that, in reality, they were Danish, as stated in one of the minority’s annual publications, Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig: it was argued that ‘expressions such as “Germanised Jutes” bear no resemblance with reality … [and that] it was the Danes that came to Jutland as conquerors and pressed their way down into Schleswig’.79 Volkskalender was one of the few institutions that survived the showdown. On the surface the publication looks the same during the

60  •  Beyond the Border

entire period that is studied here; a closer look at the issues of 1945 and 1946, however, reveals the ideological as well as the institutional consequences of 1945. The 1945 editorial (written in 1944) focuses on the war and it states: Our people, unified by our Führer, fights a heroic battle. No one should feel weak. We stand together and we are willing to take all burdens upon us. We do not ask ‘why’ or ‘how come’. Our people is in danger and need, and it needs all of us.80

By 1946, the editor, Peter Callesen, was imprisoned and the teacher Frederik Christensen (known as Fr. Christensen) took over the position as editor. He wrote: The suffering of your people is inexpressible and you cannot and will not escape that suffering … You m u s t [sic.] keep with your people even in defeat and death. Only a person without principles would abandon it because it lost its power and freedom! Your Danish neighbour would do the same, if loyalty is still an existing concept.81

Despite the fact that these two quotations have been taken from very different contexts, the essential messages were strikingly similar: loyalty to the German nation, in the eyes of Volkskalender, should remain unaffected by any circumstances. Comparing the two issues of Volkskalender also reveals the structural changes to the minority’s institutions. In 1945, the last thirty pages of Volkskalender, placed between the annual obituaries and a list of the forthcoming regional farmers’ markets, describe the activities of all the pre-1945 German institutions in North Schleswig.82 The diverse nature of all German-minority associations shows the high level of independency from the Danish state: many aspects of life were handled independently within a minority framework. In the 1946 issue, following the closing down of all these institutions, only one page with a statement in large gothic font sits between the obituaries and the forthcoming markets. It reads: Where the state’s protection of nationhood is terminated, where even the state violently fights nationhood, the family alone takes over the responsibility for nurturing the coming generations, just like in old times. In particular, the mother is responsible for nurturing and passing on the language.83

German minorities elsewhere in Europe suffered dire fates after the Second World War but the perception that the Danish government’s policies were violent attacks on the minority was an exaggeration. In fact, the Danish government made several attempts to reach a lasting solution even before December 1945; but navigating between securing

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  61

the minority’s rights and keeping in tune with public Danish opinion was a difficult task. In the summer of 1945, the Danish secretary of education, A.M. Hansen was quoted saying that it was ‘inevitable that certain changes [would] be made to the structure of the minority’s education system … And there [were] many pressing issues that [could not] be overlooked. On the other hand [he hoped] that Denmark [would retain] its leading position regarding liberal treatment of minorities’. He added: ‘We should not be influenced by Nazi thought or its methods’.84 Another member of the Danish parliament, Frede Nielsen, said in 1946 that: ‘here and there certain circles of Danish-minded people have attempted to prevent the establishment of German private schools. This kind of behaviour is unacceptable and it is poisonous for the new law that is supported by an overwhelming majority of the [Danish] population’.85 One such attempt took place in the predominantly German-minded village, Uge. In June 1946, Peter Jepsen, who worked to reconstruct a German school in Uge, received a letter from an anonymous group threatening: [i]f you do not immediately abandon your plans for a [German] school, from this day on you will not be able to consider yourself safe either day or night. … it may not be that we bomb you; we can also seize you … For example, I am the owner of an electrical iron ring which can be fitted to the head and connected to current.86

In 1945 and 1946, undoubtedly, the German minority was under pressure from the Danes. However a distinction needs to be made between the positions of the government and some politicians and the positions of the resistance movement and some other groups. In addition to the outside pressure coming from parts of the Danish majority, the German-minded group was also under pressure from within. As discussed above, many North Schleswig Germans had strong ties to the region where Danish and German culture, language and identity had existed side by side for generations. The fact that the minority shared their regional vernacular speech with the Danishminded population meant that they could pass into the majority relatively easily. From a Danish perspective, assimilating into the majority was regarded as unproblematic: the German-minded were only rediscovering their real national identity. The Danish view that the German minority could assimilate into the majority if they so desired also came to the fore in the Danish schools that took the children from the German schools that had been closed. During an oral history interview in 2013, a German-minority

62  •  Beyond the Border

man, born in 1940, remembered his experiences in a Danish middle school in Sønderborg as mostly pleasant. The teachers, he recalled, treated him and other German-minority children very well indeed. He remembered too, however, the feeling that the Danish school paid special attention to him and the seven other children in the class who came from German-minded homes. He was under the impression that teachers sought quite deliberately to influence him in a national sense.87 Written accounts support the argument that Danish schools welcomed former German students and that the Danish schools consciously took measures to integrate the new students. In the winter of 1945, the magazine Folkeskolen described the situation in North Schleswig, this time focusing on the integration of Germanminority pupils into the Danish schools. A school headmaster from Aabenraa expressed his satisfaction with developments and was quoted reporting that ‘the integration of the German pupils [had been] successful beyond our expectations’.88 He elaborated on the success by adding that: I am pleased that the pupils from the German schools have not attempted to keep themselves isolated, for example during the breaks. They tend to stick to the groups in which they have been placed and I am under the impression that the relationship is good. The pupils are fortunate in that they are all of different ages and this has been important. They have been placed in a way which – so to speak – drowns them in Danish pupils. In the classroom they have all been seated next to Danes. Naturally, some of the new students have had trouble keeping up, especially if they come from German-speaking homes and are used to the gothic script only.89

In a personal memorandum, librarian and chairman of Sprogforeningen, the Danish language association, Jakob Petersen, made the Danish efforts even more explicit. Petersen wrote the following in 1951, but reflected upon the situation in 1945: It is well-known that many in this country thought that the German minority was doomed, and that whatever was left of it would be taken care of by the Danish school system in a relatively short time. There was no doubt that the Danish-speaking children from German-minded homes enjoyed the Danish schools … The problem was that the same trust could not be extended to the children’s parents and with that the battle was lost.90

In the first five years after the Second World War, the minority’s greatest tasks were first to re-establish its institutions and second to keep families and individuals loyal to the German minority. Both Danish and German sources indicate that many previously German-minded

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  63

people assimilated with the Danish majority. A 1949 police report from the town of Aabenraa to the Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen provides a good insight into the changes of national affiliation in the four large towns in North Schleswig. The report includes percentages of church rituals carried out in the German-speaking wards of the state church during the period 1936–49. The report reveals an unequivocal shift away from the minority, in particular of young people. For Tønder, for example, the town in North Schleswig where the minority stood strongest, funeral and christening percentages in the German wards were relatively stable at between 38 and 54 for the entire period. Confirmation percentages, however, dropped from 33.3 percent in 1945 to 10.7 percent in 1949. In the other three towns, the pattern was similar. In Aabenraa confirmation figures dropped 32.5 percent in 1945 to 5.5 percent in 1949; in Sønderborg from 36.5 percent in 1945 to 7.2 percent in 1949; and in Haderslev from 14 percent in 1945 to 3.7 percent in 1949.91 The report itself noted the large decline of German confirmations in North Schleswig and concluded that ‘it [was] caused possibly by the fact that a lot of children attend the Danish schools now and most likely want to attend confirmation classes with their friends’.92 From a German point of view, however, the transition was ill tolerated. The following extracts provide an idea of how the minority viewed the assimilation process. Commenting on the situation south of the border in 1949, the head of the school association, Christensen, expressed his discontent in the following way: Also amongst the German North Schleswigers such treason exists. Characterless weaklings exist in all places and at all times. Those who are not with us are against us.93

In 1953, when the assimilation of minority families into the majority appeared to continue, Christensen commented again on the matter: Is it really the case that the German people have weaker characters than the Danes that, like a dog, they lick the boots of him who steps on them, that in times of hardship they follow the herd uncritically and thoughtlessly, that their German-ness is only a varnish that can be scratched off?94

Christensen reacted so strongly because he did not accept that national identity could be changed. Born in North Schleswig in 1882, he lived most of his life in the region, apart from shorter periods of time spent in Germany. He belonged to the circle of people who favoured good relations with Denmark and the Danish majority and who had not been part of the wartime National Socialist minority core. Nevertheless, he vigorously opposed those who did not see the Danish and German

64  •  Beyond the Border

nations as two clearly distinct and separate groups. As head of the German school and language association until 1955, he was a main early influence on the formulation and dissemination of a new German identity for post-war minority children and youths. Under his leadership of the school and language association, German-minority identity was to remain unequivocally German, in clear distinction from the Danish neighbour. Christensen and the association were not anti-Danish. Rather the contrary. In 1949, Christensen wrote: To improve our relationship with the Danish people is our most urgent task, but to speak of this has rhetorical meaning only in so far as our equality as citizens is not recognised.95

In 1951, after highlighting the fact that over 3,000 German children were still attending Danish schools, Christensen made his view even more explicit: None of this is a criticism of Danish schooling as such. Everything is to be understood in relation to the educational questions of the German minority. The Danish schools are good and right for the Danes the way they are. We are different and hold different views regarding many important questions of schooling and education. We need German schools.96

By the early 1950s, the school and language association’s building and establishing of new private schools gathered momentum. In 1950, the association opened eleven schools in the month of January alone. In April, three more schools opened and in August followed an additional four.97 The schools opened in 1950 raised the total number from five to twenty-three. The schools were founded on the principle that the German- and Danish-minded in North Schleswig were two distinct groups that should be able to live side by side but not necessarily interact much. The schools wished to offer this understanding to German children, as made clear in 1952: The children must achieve a clear awareness of the fact that our homeland (Heimat) is not Danish land and never has been. For one thousand years it was neither German nor Danish and here we have something to preserve.98

With this statement, the school and language association also referred to a regional conceptualisation of North Schleswig, which actually served two different purposes: first, it still rejected the Danish conventional wisdom that North Schleswig was Danish only, but second, it denounced the opposing idea that it unambiguously

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  65

belonged to Germany. The new conceptualisation thus defined a space towards which the German minority could direct its loyalty. The regional focus that considered North Schleswig to be a distinct, clearly defined unit was new. Previously, the German minority at large had self-identified either with the Schleswig-Holstein movement or the greater German nation. This new North-Schleswig focus was particularly clear in a memorandum by Christensen from 1953, which called for a history of the region to be written. Christensen envisaged a book covering twenty-eight topics, starting with the first human settlements on the edges of the ice cap. Further chapters included the early-medieval ‘Danish conquest’ and ‘North Schleswig architecture, marshland and great men’. It would conclude with the nineteenthcentury ‘national awakening’ and the ‘Prussian period [between 1864 and 1920] with its good and bad features’.99 Besides reconstructing a German education system in North Schleswig, the minority worked in other ways to secure young people’s affiliation with the group. In 1947, the minority established a youth organisation to replace the politicised youth organisations from the pre-1945 era. According to its statutes, the organisation, Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig, had three main objectives: first, ‘to promote and nourish German language and culture’; second, ‘through gymnastics and sport to continue the long tradition of German physical education’; and third, ‘to provide German socialising in a happy community’. Furthermore, the second paragraph of Jugendverband’s statutes states that the organisation was both non-political as well as run on a voluntary basis.100 The journalist and editor in chief of the minority’s newspaper Der Nordschleswiger, Jes Schmidt, was head of the organisation’s board from 1947 until 1961. Gerhard Kaadtmann functioned as director of the Jugendverband during the entire period from 1947 until 1979. Schmidt and Kaadtmann were more controversial figures. During the war, Schmidt had worked as a journalist for the German occupation in Norway, and Kaadtmann had volunteered at the front. Both had been convicted and served time in prison after 1945. Both had been engaged with youth work before 1945 and had written articles in Junge Front. The foci of Jugendverband and the choice of the individuals to head the organisation represented both changes and continuities for the German-minority youth. The organisation’s non-political nature clearly was a change from the National Socialist alignment of the pre1945 organisations, as was the emphasis on ‘a happy community of German socialising’. The National Socialist focus on physical activities

66  •  Beyond the Border

was continued, albeit this focus existed in the Danish minority and majority too. Overall, the role of sport in the lives of young people as a way of socialising and forming a community with other youths is difficult to overstate. These communities were characterised not only by gender but also the national division, and the divisions were unquestioned. However, the choices of Schmidt and Kaadtmann as heads of the new organisation perhaps represented the most surprising continuity. From 1947 onwards, Jugendverband gradually expanded its activities in North Schleswig and by 1951 more than forty sports teams were affiliated with the organisation.101 In particular, the disciplines of handball and rowing became associated with German-minority sports. Sporting events took place throughout the year, and they also became a key element of the minority’s annual gathering at Knivsbjerg, the former location of a ‘Bismarck Tower’ just north of Aabenraa. Finally, sport also became a way of establishing contact between Germanminority youths in North Schleswig and German youths south of the border. Sport associations of Jugendverband frequently visited clubs in South Schleswig. In 1949, 1950 and 1951, for example, more than 200 young North Schleswigers participated in a German crossborder sporting competition in Leck.102 Additionally, handball teams from North Schleswig participated in competitions all over South Schleswig.103 Amateur theatre was another activity for young people, which the minority managed to re-establish quickly after the meltdown in 1945. In 1947, Wilhelm Sass formed a theatre group, Nordschleswigsche Heimatsbühne, which performed in German and in Low German all over North Schleswig. According to the minority’s own estimate in 1980, audience numbers in the early 1950s were typically between 200 and 300 per performance.104 It seems that amateur theatre was a popular activity for young people and for the general reconstruction of a German cultural life in North Schleswig. In 1953, Jes Schmidt thanked Heimatsbühne for its efforts, when he spoke at a Jugendverband gathering: Jugendverband would like to thank the North Schleswig Heimatsbühne for their work of fostering the wellbeing of German youth during the difficult times after the war and for the reconstruction of a German cultural life in our home region. In a selfless and faithful way, the Heimatsbühne has created an honourable place for itself in the post-war history of German North Schleswig.105

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  67

By the mid 1950s, a sentiment existed that the minority had just about survived the end of the war. The largest impact on the German-minority youth consisted of two developments. First, the fact that German education was completely dismantled and only slowly reconstructed meant that, by far, the majority of German-minority youths had attended the Danish schools. In those schools efforts were made to make German-minority pupils feel comfortable with the change and attracted to a Danish nationality. Second, the minority was influenced by fact that many German North Schleswigers had abandoned their affiliation with the minority and assimilated. The assimilations were not forced from the Danish side, although they were not discouraged either. The minority establishment feared the circumstances would mean the end of German-ness in North Schleswig, but institutions such as Jugendverband and Heimatsbühne circumvented it. Young people themselves remained relatively voiceless in this process. The idea that an establishment provided the frame within which minority young people could live their lives was still overarching. In both North and South Schleswig, 1955 marked the end of a turbulent decade. The Danish and German minorities had each in their own ways experienced chaotic times. It was a time of strong spirits and healing wounds and a time when the positions of the groups inverted. But at the same time, much was the same. Overall, the border remained contested; first by the German minority and later by the Danish one. Both minorities accepted the perpetuated struggle between the nationalities as an inherent part of life and identity in the border region. Young people were a part of the nationally divisive framework. Institutions were formed, which influenced their lives, and they focused on a national distinction from the other nationality and the strong connection across the border to the kin-state. On the private level, relations were always more blurry, and from 1955 onwards young people came to play a more active part in discussing and defining these loyalties and identities.

Notes  1. Noack, Det danske mindretal, 59.  2. Karen Gram-Skjoldager, ‘Grænsen ligger fast!’.   3. Noack, Det danske mindretal, 532.   4. Ibid., 307.  5. Calculations made on the basis of tables in ibid., 304, 11.

68  •  Beyond the Border

  6. Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig [hereafter DCBS]: F 141–60; F 141– 60. Flensborg Bys Hovedkreds: Flensborg Ungdomsforening, 1935–76 [hereafter FUF]: ‘Meddelelse om Virksomheden i Aaret 1935’.  7. Ibid.   8. DCBS: F 141–60; FUF: ‘Meddelelse om Virksomheden i Aaret 1936–7’.  9. Ibid. 10. Diercksen, ‘Duborg-Skolens tilblivelseshistorie’, 16–17. 11. Ibid. 12. Noack, Det danske mindretal, 327. 13. Mink, ‘Lad lyset aldrig slukkes’, 42. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Noack, Det danske mindretal, 329. 17. Ibid., 322–23. 18. Ibid., 323. 19. Ibid., 542. 20. Ibid., 518. 21. Berdichevsky, ‘Chameleon Territory’. 22. Hoffmeyer, ‘Sydslesvigs Problem’. Also: Klatt, ‘Sydslesvig og grænsen’. 23. Berdichevsky, ‘Danish Dilemmas’; and Bohn, Danker and Kühl, (eds). 24. According to searches on the most comprehensive search engine in Denmark www.bibliotek.dk (search carried out 27 May 2016): sixteen in 1938; eight in 1939; three in 1940; two in 1941; two in 1942; four in 1943; twelve in 1944. 25. According to searches on the most comprehensive search engine in Denmark www.bibliotek.dk (search carried out 27 May 2016): 103 in 1945; ninety-one in 1946; seventy-five in 1947; eighty-one in 1948; sixty-one in 1949; forty-eight in 1950. 26. Meyer, Aktuel, 10. 27. Johansen, ‘Jordens’, 9–20. 28. Hoffmeyer, ‘Sydslesvigs Problem’, 27–28. 29. Pedersen, Front og Bro, 22. 30. OHI: TWS (14 November 2013): Danish-minority female born 1936. 31. OHI: TWS (18 February 2014): Danish-minority female born 1943. 32. OHI: TWS (6 May 2013): Danish-minority male born 1936. 33. OHI: TWS (18 Feb. 2014): Danish-minority female born 1943. 34. Klatt, ‘Sydslesvig og grænsen’, 198. 35. Noack, Det sydslesvigske grænsespørgsmål 1945–1947. 36. Wung-Sung, ‘Britain and the Danish-minded Minority. 37. Noack, Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1948–1955, 227. 38. N.N., ‘Den danske skoles udviklingslinie’. 39. Ibid. 40. Leif Volck Madsen, ‘Min sydslesvigske skolegang’, 81–83. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid. 43. OHI: TWS (14 November 2013): Danish-minority female born 1936. 44. N.N., ‘Skolens udviklingshistorie gennem et tiaar’.

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds  •  69

45. DCBS: F 141–60; FUF: ‘Skema, Flensborg Ungdomsforening’ (20 April 1948). 46. These forms exist for all associations during the period 1950–1968. For institutions under SdU see DCBS and the entire series F 141. 47. DCBS: F 141–60: FUF; ‘Spørgeskema’, (1952). 48. Ibid. ‘Spørgeskema’ (1954–55). 49. DCBS: F 141–60: ‘Flensborg Bys Hovedkreds, 1931–59: Dansk

Gymnastikforening Flensborg’ [hereafter DGF]: ‘Årsberetning’ (1954–55).

50. Ibid. 51. OHI: TWS (18 February 2014): Danish-minority female born 1943. 52. Treklangen (July 1954), 53. ‘Breve fra læsere’. 53. Treklangen (April 1954), 11. ‘Folkedansen’. 54. Treklangen (October 1954), 98. ‘H. Tychsen: Efter valget’. 55. Ibid. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid. 58. Noack, Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1948–1955, 142. 59. Becker-Christensen, Det tyske mindretal i Nordslesvig 1920-1932, 52. 60. A second plebiscite was held in South Schleswig, where the constituencies voted separately, facilitating potential adjustments to the border. None of the constituencies in the second zone had Danish majorities apart from a small number on the North Frisian Islands. 61. For one of the best and most recent accounts in Danish of the consequences of the annexation see: Andersen, Den følte grænse. In addition, for the consequences of reunification: Nørr, Schultz Hansen and Fransen, Harmonisering eller særordning. 62. Junge Front (January–February 1940), 8, ‘Peter Petersen: 20 Jahre Turnen, Spiel und Sport in Nordschleswig’. 63. Junge Front (May 1941), 10. ‘C.J. Roth: Die deutsche Schule ist die Heimstätte des deutschen Kindes’. 64. Ibid. 65. Junge Front (May 1941), 15. ‘Das gibt es auch!’. 66. Ibid. 67. Junge Front (August 1943), 13. ‘Swingidioten’. 68. Ibid. 69. Ibid. 70. Becker-Christensen, Det tyske mindretal i Nordslesvig 1920–1932, 202–3. 71. Ibid. 72. Junge Front (February 1939), 9. ‘Jef Blume: Junge Mannschaft’. 73. Junge Front (April 1940), 2. ‘Nis Nissen: ‘Sie kommen!’. 74. Kristensen, Straffelejren, 21. 75. Junge Front (February–March 1945), 24. 76. Lubowitz, ‘Det tyske mindretal’, 115–29. 77. OHI: TWS (12 August 2013): German-minority female born 1938. 78. OHI: TWS (30 July 2013): German-minority male born 1940.

70 • Beyond the Border

79. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1949), 35. ‘Fr. Christensen: Heimdeutschtum’. 80. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1945), 18. ‘P.C.: Zum Geleit’. 81. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1946), 2. ‘Zum Geleit’.   82. The institutions were: the political party (the NSDAP-Nordschleswig); the armed volunteer corps (Schleswigsche Kammeratshaft (SK)); the Women’s group (Frauenschaft Nordschleswig); youth groups (Deutsche Jungenschaft and Deutsche Mädelschaft); the school system and library services; the cultural association (Bund für deutsche Kultur); the church and various social services; the employment association; the agricultural association; the publishing house; and the student association in Copenhagen (Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten).   83. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1946), 93.   84. Folkeskolen (1945), ‘Ugens Emner’.   85. Landsarkivet for Sønderjylland [hereafter LAS]: RA 1055, 1055/6: Undersøgelse – danske foreninger og det tyske mindretal: ‘Jakob Petersen: Personligt memorandum. Mindretallets stilling nord for grænsen’ (1 July 1951).   86. Archiv der Deutsche Volksgruppe [hereafter ADV]: Deutsche Schul- und Sprachverein [hereafter DSSV]: ‘Letter from “de 18” to Herr Peter Jepsen in Uge’ (10 April 1946).   87. OHI: TWS (30 July 2013): German-minority male born 1940.   88. Folkeskolen (1945), 147. ‘Tyske Elever’.   89. Ibid.  90. LAS: RA 1055, 1055/6: ‘Jakob Petersen: Personligt memorandum. Mindretallets stilling nord for grænsen’ (1 July 1951).  91. LAS: Politikommandøren for Sønderjylland og Åbenrå politi: Sager vedr. mindretallet efter 1945, 1947–1962: ‘Report from Police in Aabenraa to Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen’ (24 March 1949).  92. Ibid.   93. Volkskalender (1949), 35, ‘Fr. Chistensen: Heimdeutschtum’.   94. ADV: DSSV: ‘Vertraulich Rundschrieben’ (26 January 1953).  95. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1949), 35. ‘Fr. Christensen: Heimdeutschtum’.   96. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1951), 26. ‘Fr. Christensen: Neuer Anfang unseres Bildungswesens’.  97. Ibid., 26–31.   98. ADV: DSSV: ‘Rundschrieben’ (1952).  99. ADV: DSSV: ‘Rundschrieben’ (1953). 100. ADV: Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig [hereafter DJVN]: ‘Satzungen’ (1948). 101. ADV: DJVN: ‘Booklet titled: Deutsche Jugendarbeit in Nordschleswig: Wiederaufbau in den Jahren 1947–72’. 102. Ibid. 103. Ibid. 104. Kardel, ‘Nordschleswigsche Heimatbühne’, 12–20. 105. Ibid., 53.

Strong Spirits and Healing Wounds • 71

Bibliography Andersen, Morten. Den følte grænse: Slesvigs deling og genopbygning 1918–1933. Aabenraa: Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 2008. Becker-Christensen, Henrik. Det tyske mindretal i Nordslesvig 1920–1932. Aabenraa: Institut for Grænseregionsforskning, 1990. Berdichevsky, Norman. ‘The Chameleon Territory of South Schleswig (Slesvig): Fluctuations in the Perception of Naitonal Identity’. Boundary and Security Bulletin 5, no. 1 (1997): 65–70. ———. ‘Danish Dilemmas: South Schleswig after World War II and “Unassimilated” Immigrants Today’. World Affairs 167, no. 2 (2004): 79–87. Bohn, Robert, Uwe Danker and Jørgen Kühl, eds. Nationale mindretal i det dansktyske grænseland 1933–1945. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforkning, 2001. Diercksen, Gerd. ‘Duborg-Skolens tilblivelseshistorie’. In Duborg-Skolen 1920– 1995, edited by Erik Jensen, Lone Anker Jakobsen, Michael Klos, Bent Meng and Knud A. Rasmussen, 9–23. Flensborg: Flensborg Avis, 1995. Gram-Skjoldager, Karen. ‘Grænsen ligger fast! Det sønderjyske spørgsmål i dansk udenrigs- og indenrigspolitik 1920–1940’. Skrifter udgivet af historisk samfund for Sønderjylland, no. 95 (2006). Hoffmeyer, Johs. ‘Sydslesvigs Problem i vor tids belysning’. In Sydslesvig i dag, edited by G.K. Brøndsted, 18–21. Copenhagen: Forlaget Nordan, 1955–56. Johansen, H.P. ‘Jordens, Blodets, den folkelige Underbevidstheds danske Vidnesbyrd’. In Grundborg i det sydslesvigske spørgsmaal, edited by Fr. Thomsen, 9–20. Toftlund: Danskernes Forlag, 1946. Kardel, Harboe. ‘Die Nordschleswigsche Heimatbühne: ein Kapitel deutscher Kulturarbeit in der Nachkriegszeit 1947–1967’. Schriften der Heimatkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Nordschleswig, no. 42 (1980). Klatt, Martin. ‘Sydslesvig og grænsen 1945–1955’. In København-Bonn Erklæringerne 1955–2005: De dansk-tyske mindretalserklæringers baggrund, tilblivelse of virkning, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 197–217. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforkning, Syddansk Universitet, 2005. Kristensen, Henrik Skov. Straffelejren – Fårhus, landssvigerne og retsopgøret. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag Arnold Busk, 2011. Lubowitz, Frank. ‘Det tyske mindretal i Danmark 1945–1955’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 115–33. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. Madsen, Leif Volck. ‘Min sydslesvigske skolegang’. In Duborgskolen, edited by Erik Jensen, Lone Anker Jakobsen, Michael Klos and Bent Meng, 81–83. Flensborg: Flensborg Avis, 1995. Meyer, Poul. Aktuel vejledning i det sydslesvigske spørgsmål. Copenhagen: H. Hagerup, 1945. Mink, Henrik. ‘Lad lyset aldrig slukkes – Duborg-Skolen i mellemkrigsårene’. In Duborgskolen 1920–1995, edited by Lone Anker Jakobsen, Erik Jensen, Michael Klos, Bent Meng and Knud A. Rasmussen, 24–46. Flensborg: Flensborg Avis, 1995.

72 • Beyond the Border

N.N. ‘Den danske skoles udviklingslinie’. In Sydslesvig i dag, edited by G.K. Brøndsted, 250–55. Copenhagen: Forlaget Nordan, 1955–56. N.N., ‘Skolens udviklingshistorie gennem et tiaar’. In Sydslesvig i dag, edited by G.K. Brøndsted, 85–92. Copenhagen: Forlaget Nordan, 1955–56. Noack, Johan Peter. Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1920–1945. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 1989. ———. Det sydslesvigske grænsespørgsmål 1945–1947. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 1991. ———. Det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig 1948–1955. Vol. 1. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 1997. Nørr, Erik, Hans Schultz Hansen and Peter Fransen. Harmonisering eller særordning. Vol. 1, Sønderjylland som administrativ forsøgsmark efter Genforeningen i 1920. Aabenraa: Historisk Samfund for Sønderjylland, 2002. Pedersen, Viggo Guttorm. Front og Bro: småfløjt på Grænsens Melodi. Copenhagen: Dansk-Nordisk Ungdomsforbund, 1946, 22. Wung-Sung, Tobias Haimin. ‘Britain and the Danish-minded Minority in South Schleswig: Problems and Solutions, 1945–6’. MA Dissertation University College London, 2012.

O2 Unlikely Cold War Allies

Young People Challenging the Border Struggle and Isolationism, c. 1955–62

In 1955, Denmark and West Germany became military allies in NATO. The military partnership was formed only ten years after the end of the Second World War, a point in time when Danish perceptions of Germany and Germans had become only a little less hostile. The prospect of a remilitarised Germany enjoyed only little – if any – support among Danes, and, in addition, Denmark had only joined the military alliance in the first place as a Nordic alternative had failed.1 But in reality, the situation was quite similar in West Germany. West Germans were critical of the further cementation of the east–west division of Germany, and opposition to remilitarisation was strong particularly among West German youths.2 For the minorities in the Danish–German border region, the unlikely alliance became a catalyst of change, as the new political realities became the context within which minority/majority relationships were formed. During the ten years between 1945 and 1955, national identities in Schleswig had been both ambiguous and clear-cut at the same time. On the individual level, nationalities were fluid: many Schleswigers passed from a German to a Danish identity on both sides of the border. Officially, however, the relations between Danes and Germans were tense, and the two national camps existed in opposition to – and in isolation from – one another. After 1955, however, young people introduced into the collective-minority discourse some of the confusion that used to exist on the individual level only.

74  •  Beyond the Border

1955 has been seen as a turning point in the relationship between Danes and Germans in the border region in retrospect, but it was not regarded as such at the time. The ways in which the military partnership would influence the minorities were not in any way clear or given from the start. While minority–majority relations in Schleswig were still determined by the national contestations of yesterday, there was less space for that in the new European Cold War order. The divided continent made Denmark and West Germany ideological and political partners as market-oriented liberal democracies in opposition to the communist East. Together with the rest of Western Europe and the United States, Denmark was now the unlikely ally of its former archenemy, Germany. In this new political order, the Danish–German border question became obsolete, and for the Danish-minded minority, the situation presented a challenging paradox. The minority stood stronger than ever in South Schleswig, yet its main ambition, the annexation of South Schleswig into Denmark, seemed ever more impossible. The ambiguity following from the divergence between the impossibility of annexation and the real and everyday successes of, for example, building schools, forming youth clubs, organising leisure activities, and so on, was an uncomfortable paradox that haunted the Danish minority. North of the border, the German minority had abandoned separatism completely with the fall of The Third Reich. Still, the isolationist tendencies were strong. The German minority’s goal was far less ambitious than those of the Danish minority: all post-war activities aimed at securing the German minority’s long-term survival. The almost opposite positions of the two groups aside, they still shared overarching perceptions. Both still viewed the national contestation between Danish and German spheres in the border region as the natural and permanent order – but young people in both minorities slowly became unable to combine that logic with reality. In the late 1950s, minority youths on both sides of the border began to challenge the isolationist notions characteristic of both minorities in the first post-war decade. Over only a few years, the articulations and manifestations by and related to minority youths regarding their relationship with the majority populations changed significantly. Young people increasingly perceived the world and their own place in it in ways that differed from established perceptions. The Danish–German alliance in NATO also became the catalyst for the formulation of a legal framework for Denmark and West Germany and their respective national minorities.3 In connection with the negotiations of West Germany’s entry into NATO, Danish politicians

Unlikely Cold War Allies • 75

raised the issue of the Danish-minority political party, Südschleswigsche Wählerverein (SSW), in Schleswig-Holstein. Having fallen below the 5 percent threshold in the 1954 Schleswig-Holstein parliament elections, Danish politicians requested SSW’s exemption from the threshold. West Germany agreed to negotiations about the minority’s political representation but demanded in turn that negotiations included a formalisation of Denmark’s relationship with the German minority. The negotiations resulted in two similar yet independent unilateral declarations by Denmark and West Germany vis-à-vis the two minorities. Known as the Bonn–Copenhagen Declarations of 1955, they established the undisputable rights of the two minorities to live and function in their native regions. The adherence to any nationality was free and should remain unchallenged. The minorities were granted the same rights and obligations as the majorities as well as the freedom to practise their language and culture of choice.4 Whereas the historiography on the Danish–German borderlands generally considers the formulations of the declarations as the model that led to subsequent peaceful coexistence between Danish and German in Schleswig, the contemporaneous attitudes towards them were different. In South Schleswig, the Danish minority did not believe any promises made by Germany in any shape or form.5 Furthermore, the minority did not favour any solution that made South Schleswig’s annexation into Denmark any less likely.6 Nor did the German minority in North Schleswig believe that the de facto institutionalised discrimination of the minority in the post-war decade would disappear overnight. Regarding the lives of young people, two direct consequences derived from the Declarations and from West Germany’s entry into NATO. First, West Germany was rearmed and military service was reintroduced. Second, minority schools were allowed to issue exams that qualified for higher education, meaning that young people were now able to stay within a minority educational framework until they were ready for higher education. This chapter will examine the case of military service for the Danish minority in South Schleswig and the case of the right to carry out exams in North Schleswig.

The Case of Remilitarisation versus Isolation and the Border Question in South Schleswig Overall, the ways that the Danish-minded youth and the establishment positioned themselves regarding the remilitarisation of West

76  •  Beyond the Border

Germany illustrated that young people’s perceptions of the national contestation for Schleswig changed during the late 1950s. The question of remilitarisation emerged in 1951, around the same time as the announcement of the Pleven Plan and the proposed Western European defence community as the alternative to West Germany in NATO.7 The debates about remilitarisation peaked in 1954–55 when West Germany entered NATO and the reintroduction of national service became a reality. After 1957, the topic almost disappeared, at least from the public sphere, from newspapers and other publications. When following the debates about rearmament and military service in young people’s own publications and in other publications where the topic was debated, it becomes clear that young Danish minority attitudes to the West German state and the majority population changed significantly over a short period of time. In a period of only five to six years, young people went from strongly opposing rearmament, and speaking of Germany as the enemy, to generally accepting military service and perceiving the German majority as fellow allies in the new world order. The debates illustrated a challenge from young people to the anti-German and isolationist Danish minority discourse. The earliest post-war youth positions on West German rearmament opposed it actively and unequivocally. The opposition began in 1951 when the 25-year-old journalist Karl Christiansen from Flensburg and four other young men initiated a petition, encouraging all the minority’s organisations to actively resist any form of military service applying to the minority. Signed by several hundred sympathisers, the petition declared: In all circumstances we refuse to let ourselves be drafted into a German army. We refuse because as Danes and as democrats we cannot align it with our conscience to serve in an army whose superiors are the same group of people that willingly led the Hitler army’s war against freedom, truth and justice.8

Christiansen elaborated his position in an article titled ‘I say no to the German uniform – a young Danish South Schleswiger on his position on the remilitarisation of Germany’.9 Christiansen’s strongest issues were the possibility of German retaliation, and the argument that a new German army would be manned by the same people who fought in the Second World War. Moreover, he argued that ‘one hundred years of German history – including the last five years – [provided] enough reason to severely question the ability and the will of Germany to abandon aggressive nationalism in favour of what [was understood] as democracy’.10

Unlikely Cold War Allies • 77

Christiansen did not oppose the military in general; he acknowledged the possible need to fight for freedom and democracy. But he argued that, under such circumstances, Danish-minded service men should be placed either under Danish or another international European command. He concluded: Perhaps it is impossible to carry out the mentioned suggestions for practical or political reasons. But then it seems suitable to leave it to those who will be in charge of the defence of the Western democracies, to offer the free men of South Schleswig a possibility to fulfil their duties as members of the Western society. But we refuse to fight under the leadership of previous Nazis. We refuse to be led by representatives of the nation that has inflicted so much misfortune on the world and on our homeland, a nation towards whom we have not one single obligation, and whom we deeply distrust.11

The particular opposition to rearmament and the general animosity towards Germany and the Germans represented the position of a generation of young South Schleswigers who were old enough to remember the Second World War. This generation’s real-life experiences of the war continued to shape its relationship to and with the majority population and the new West German republic. There were no generational differences on the issue of militarisation; the young men’s positions mirrored those of the establishment. Due to a lack of faith in the sincerity and longevity of West German democracy, the minority’s political representative in Bonn, Herman Clausen, objected to remilitarisation too. What really alarmed the Danish minority across generations was the fact that remilitarisation took place so soon after the end of the Second World War. Clausen, wrote in Flensborg Avis in 1953: My ‘no’ does not mean that I object to a common Western defence of democracy. I support such a defence, but the approval of German participation in such a Western defence of democracy is, in my mind, dependent on a stable democracy in West Germany itself, and the latter cannot be said to exist. Nobody knows this better than the Danish South Schleswiger. Therefore I say ‘no’ in Bonn this time.12

In 1954, the plans of the European Defence Community were abandoned when its ratification in the French parliament failed. Instead, it became clear that West Germany would be remilitarised and enter into an alliance with the West through NATO.13 As a founding member of the military alliance, Denmark considered West German remilitarisation and its consequences for the minority in South Schleswig carefully. The dilemmas were substantial.14

78  •  Beyond the Border

First, Danish politicians were well aware that attempts to demand special rights for national minorities were unacceptable to the international community, especially to Britain and the USA. The experiences of the interwar period still loomed large, and the Allies took the view that minorities in Europe should have no special rights.15 Second, Danish politicians were restrained by the necessity of expressing consistent positions towards the Danish-minded in South Schleswig and the German-minded minority in North Schleswig. The ambiguities were clearly stated by the Danish foreign secretary in the Danish parliament in 1954: According to my own and, I think I can say, the Government’s estimate, it would not be appropriate to seek exemptions to military service in the German army for the Danish-minded. Most likely it would be extremely difficult to achieve such exemption, if not impossible. In the long run it would not be appropriate to defer from the rule that a citizen’s rights depend upon the fulfilment of a citizen’s obligations.16

Despite the lack of support from Denmark, the minority continued to attempt to secure a special arrangement with Bonn regarding military service. By 1954 however, as the topic was debated most vigorously, the Danish party, SSW, had lost its mandate in Bonn, preventing the minority from making similar objections to the one made by Herman Clausen in 1951. Karl Christiansen, the initiator of the petition in 1951 continued to work actively on the case, including pressurising SSW and SSF. In October 1954, Christiansen wrote to the two organisations arguing that SSW and SSF should take a stand of unequivocal opposition to military service, not least because of moral support of young Danish-minded men.17 Opposition to military service was also the position of the mainly Copenhagen- but also Aarhus-based group of South Schleswig students in higher education, Foreningen for Sydslesvigske Studerende (FSS). This group, its members in general slightly younger than Christiansen, presented its arguments in their own publication Front og Bro, which focused heavily on remilitarisation in 1954/5. To some extent, their arguments differed from those made by young people in the early 1950s; they focused less on the national questions and more on the obligations of young people to democracy. FSS argued that refusing to serve in the German army could not be seen as disloyalty to the West German state.18 They also argued that, according to the German constitution, ‘no German citizen [could] be forced to bear arms if it conflicts with his conscience’.19 Furthermore, the students pointed to the fact that remilitarisation was opposed by a

Unlikely Cold War Allies • 79

broad spectre of the German youth as well, exemplified by the popular ‘ohne mich’ (without me) campaign.20 The students stated that ‘in three wars, our grandfathers, fathers and brothers have shed their blood for Germany. Enough is enough. We will not do it’.21 FSS elaborated on their arguments in another article about remilitarisation. The group maintained that neither the Danish nor the pacifist argument were core elements of their opposition.22 Rather, FSS objected to military service because they were democrats: Protecting democracy in Germany, that is the obligation of our generation. Those who are younger than us did not see the horrors brought by the Nazi regime. We do not think that the West German democracy is strong enough to withstand the difficulties and dangers that follow from remilitarisation. We object to remilitarisation under any form.23

The Government in Copenhagen and the Danish minority establishment represented by SSW and SSF both faced a growing dilemma regarding military service. According to a statement published in Flensborg Avis in January 1955, it appears that some controversy emerged over the topic between the younger generation and the establishment. Chairman of SSF, Bøgh-Andersen, wrote that he was made aware that some people had ‘put words in his mouth’24 regarding national service for the Danish minority. Furthermore, Bøgh-Andersen stated rather vaguely that, regarding military service, the minority should seek ‘the best solution for our young people’25 but still ‘not give up on the right to function in our homeland and for its future’.26 The vagueness of Bøgh-Andersen’s statement can be explained by the coming of the minority treaties’ introduced in connection with West Germany’s accession to NATO, the Bonn–Copenhagen Declarations. As discussed, the Bonn Declaration secured the Danish minority’s political representation, but with regard to remilitarisation it also limited the Danish minority’s possibilities. Furthermore, the Declaration provided the West German state with a convenient and all-encompassing answer to potential requests for special treatment made after March 1955. In August 1956, for example, the German Ministry of Defence responded to a series of special conditions for minority service men that ‘any such do not seem necessary as the Bonn Declaration remain[ed] valid also during military service’.27 In July 1956, conscription laws were passed in West Germany and, from spring 1957, young men born after 1937 were drafted. After the reintroduction of military service in West Germany, the minority’s primary concern regarding the young men serving in the army was the risk that they would lose their Danish identity. In 1956,

80  •  Beyond the Border

the chairman of SdU put it this way: ‘Military service will cause new problems to Danish youth in South Schleswig as a whole, and the individual will often experience troubles and emotional conflicts’.28 Treklangen also printed, in 1956: We need to face the reality that our youngsters from next year – perhaps even this autumn – will be drafted for military service. We cannot prevent this. Only few will have the courage and strength to refuse. And we stand powerless and cannot liberate them from this, in our minds, pointless time in service.29

The young men actually going to serve discussed the topic too. By the late 1950s, however, the argumentation of youths was different from when the debates started in the early 1950s. This new generation, born just before the Second World War, had no active memory of the it and did not appear to perceive military service for Germany in the same unequivocally anti-German way as the slightly older generation. In January 1957, Vulkanen, the school paper at Duborg-Skolen, written by students but still censored by the school, presented five thoughts facing future soldiers. Losing one’s Danish-ness was listed as the primary concern, followed by the unfairness of serving a state which did not provide equal funding for minority schools (hardly a real concern of students themselves) as well as fear of bullying, a future war and the inability to defend anything should the Russians really decide to wage war.30 The article’s conclusion followed up the last thought with the question ‘but can one really refuse to serve just because it is uncomfortable to be a soldier? Today Denmark and Germany are on the same side of the front’.31 Some Danish-minded students in Copenhagen held the view that Denmark and Germany were on the same side of the iron curtain too, and developed the argument even further. In April 1957, the pro-Danish borderland periodical, Grænsen, published segments of an interview that first appeared in the liberal party’s (Venstre’s) monthly publication. A group of young people in their early twenties, living in the minority’s dormitory in Copenhagen, discussed the differences between views of young people and the minority establishment. Regarding military service, 21-year-old Peter Detlef Møller argued: For example, regarding conscription, it is the case that this question no longer exists. Whether one is a German or a Danish soldier in a future war, it is all the same. We have one enemy … what we are supposed to do now, is to seek cooperation and try to understand each other and not fight.32

Unlikely Cold War Allies  •  81

21-year-old Dieter Hannberg said: One day, it will all be irrelevant. We already have NATO and with time we will have a united Europe, and when that happens, the South Schleswig Question will be redundant. But one can still hold onto our values and traditions, to Danish-ness and to the love of one’s homeland.33

Finally, 20-year-old, Günter Hintze said: We young people have a different view, we see things in a greater political perspective … We do not just see South Schleswig as ancient Danish land but as part of a greater entity … Most of the Danish establishment and its politics originates from the time before 1920. It is anachronistic. Politically, Denmark and Germany are in the same boat now. That is why we need to be more liberal and work together … The border struggle must change. It has to.34

It seems that Peter Detlef Møller was right in assuming that the question no longer existed after 1957. Of course, the minority continued to be concerned about its young people losing their Danish-ness; but gradually this became a general concern rather than one tied to military service only. However, the minority never recommended military service to young people either; rather, the minority accepted its existence as a necessary evil in the matrix of rights and obligations for the Danish-minded group. In fact, the Danish boy scouts, FDF, kept records of the number of all young men leaving for military service until 1968, paying special attention to whether a young man had volunteered for it.35 It seems that SSF even discussed what potentially could lead a young man to volunteer for military service; the possible explanations included pressure from parents, laziness, vanity (getting a new uniform) but also unemployment and opportunities to travel.36 The topic of conscription resurfaced in Vulkanen only twice between 1957 and the early 1970s. Both times the resentment towards military service did not include elements of Danish–German national contestation. In 1960 an anonymous student wrote of the unfairness that only men were forced to do military service. He argued that ‘girls should also work an entire year for only 60 German Marks and only have two days off per month’.37 Two years later, the second contribution also attacked women and the unfairness that they were exempted from service. Santa Claus [alias] argued that if women expected equal pay they should also be expected to serve in the military. Santa Claus concluded: ‘let this be a call to you, my male reader at Duborg-Skolen, to sacrifice everything for our equal rights. Fight for the emancipation of men!’38

82  •  Beyond the Border

The debate about remilitarisation highlights the shift that took place among some young people regarding the minority’s place in Germany and the world. The two last examples from the early 1960s show, too, that if military service as topic re-emerged, it did so only in sarcastic or humorous ways. The example of remilitarisation also shows that over a very short time, from 1951 to 1957, and due to the global political order, some young people began to see the minority’s relation to the home state and the German majority in a completely new way. Deriving from the fact that Denmark and Germany were allies in the new world order, the youth position regarding the majority changed with surprising speed – from the clear hostility represented by 25-year-old Karl Christiansen in 1951 to the almost opposite position held by 21-year-old Peter Detlef Møller in 1957. With only eleven years between them in age, this was a colossal shift. Yet the shift in opinions is also a result of a broader West-German context. Karl Christiansen had grown up in a Germany marked by war, terror and violence, conditions of which Peter Detlef Møller had no first-hand experience. By the late 1950s, West Germans began to feel the benefits of the economic upswing.39 But at the time, the boom was neither predicted nor expected to last.40 In the same way that many West Germans also opposed remilitarisation, many – in particular the older generation – were also sceptical of West Germany’s transformation.41 The changes did not happen in a straightforward and uncontested manner. In a similar way, the change discussed here was neither allencompassing nor undisputed. The views of all youths could not be captioned in opposing camps represented by the examples above. What was clear, however, was that the position of Peter Detlef Møller was not represented in the sources before this point, but that more examples of similar views emerged in the late 1950s. More factors were at play than the new status of Denmark and Germany as allies: for example European Integration and the economic growth in West Germany (to be developed in the following chapters). But with West Germany in NATO, the Bonn Declaration and, thus, a serious blow to hopes for a border revision, the anti-German sentiments were challenged by a growing group of Danish-minority youths.

The German Minority in North Schleswig and Young People’s Rejection of Isolationism At the time, the German minority in North Schleswig did not necessarily perceive 1955 as a turning point any more than the

Unlikely Cold War Allies  •  83

Danish-minded group in South Schleswig. The post-war decade, with its many challenges and setbacks of the German group in North Schleswig, still influenced minority life. The German minority was reconstructing its institutions and attempting to cope with the many individuals who had abandoned their German national identity and assimilated the Danish majority. That said, 1955 did at the time appear as another kind of threshold. But rather than representing the turn towards something new, the year was seen as the point in time when it was certain that the minority had survived the critical decade after the end of the Second World War. The minority perceived the preceding ten tumultuous years to have ended and that a return to some kind of normality was possible. In Volkskalender in 1954, for example, the article’s author and one of the individuals behind the democratic and Danish-loyal reconstruction of the minority’s institutions, Hans Schmidt-Gorsblock, wrote: If we think back to May 1945, we are still touched by the gloomy feeling of being doomed … It was pointless to believe in German-ness in North Schleswig. But in spite of this, a pride was awake in us which resisted all threats … it is refreshing that despite the desperate situation, thousands made the manly decision: ‘we remain who we are’.42

The German minority shared with the Danish one the fear that young people’s German-ness would be challenged by the surrounding majority population. The case of military service, however, was not a perceived risk factor in North Schleswig and similar questions of young German-minded men serving in the Danish military did not surface in North Schleswig. The topic was never debated in the Volkskalender; moreover, the minority never raised the question with the Danish parliament, according to the lists of issues registered.43 Furthermore, oral history accounts suggest that young Germanminded men experienced no reservations regarding their service from either the minority establishment or the Danish majority or military.44 The minority’s largest concern about youth was to maintain a German consciousness and to keep young people from leaving North Schleswig. In 1956, F.G. Kolberg wrote in Volkskalender that ‘one of the most important questions [was] the question of youth’. According to Kolberg ‘the survival of the group [was] only possible through youth’.45 In 1956, Volkskalender communicated this position clearly, printing this statement in a large font on a blank page: All education causing young people to leave the region is dangerous to us – perhaps even deadly. It’s better to be a smallholder in the home

84  •  Beyond the Border

region than a steward on Zeeland. It’s better to be an office clerk in the home region than an office manager in Copenhagen.46

Prior to the re-establishment of the German secondary school in Aabenraa, however, the only German minority educational institution for older youths in North Schleswig was a college in Tinglev, the Nach- und Jugendvolkshochschule Tingleff. The college provided agricultural education for young men, and housekeeping training for young women. It was first founded in 1905 (when North Schleswig was still a part of Germany), shut down after the Second World War, and then reopened in 1951. Besides its two main programmes, it offered various shorter programmes for slightly younger students too. Alongside its educational foci, however, the college served an unambiguously national purpose. A student at the college in 1952 explained in 1976 how young people felt that ‘a feeling of belonging together was awakened in us’ and that ‘we did not just want to adopt any influence coming from our neighbours’.47 According to the headmaster of the college, Paul Koopmann, the young generation was of vital importance for the survival of the minority and the national self-identification of young people was not determined by the end of their compulsory schooling, the seventh grade.48 He argued: [T]owards the end of adolescence, young people decide on their choice of occupation, their ‘milieu’, their preferences, and under what conditions they are going to live their lives. At the earliest, they make their ‘national decision’ by the time they are able to vote.49

Koopmann believed the college offered a ‘great possibility for young people to win some time’ before ‘rushing off’ to be educated somewhere else.50 The college itself was strongly influenced by Koopmann’s worldview. Together with his wife, Meta Koopmann, he headed Nachschule Tingleff for two decades, from 1952 to 1972; he also chaired the minority’s youth association from 1961 to 1963. Koopmann was a native of North Schleswig, born in Sønderborg in 1911 but educated in the universities of Innsbruck, Copenhagen and Kiel. He had volunteered for service in the German military during the Second World War and – like many others of his generation – he had served time in prison after the end of the war in 1945. He was a key figure in the German minority from the early 1950s until his death in 1975. Koopmann’s views on nationality in Schleswig were clear: he was a conservative who favoured good relations between Germans and Danes but, at the same time, he saw Danish and German nationalities

Unlikely Cold War Allies  •  85

in Schleswig as two completely different identities. Describing in 1975 his ambitions with the college, Koopmann wrote that he wished to ‘expose young people to German language, German songs and German history, so that they could become aware why their parents self-identified as Germans at all’.51 Nevertheless, Koopmann was clear about his belief that being a North Schleswig German was a different from being German in general. On the question of whether it would have been better to send minority youths off to West Germany, he stated that ‘after the lost war, we had to disseminate to young people a consciousness of being German that was not imported from outside [North Schleswig]’.52 The strong dedication at the college to the nourishment of a German identity became particularly evident in the area of language. The college upheld a strict German-only language policy, despite the fact that most of the students spoke low Danish as their native language and at home. In 1975, the first headmaster of the school (1951–52), Christian Carstensen, reflected on the language issue: The German lessons came before anything else. All the girls had attended Danish schools since the breakdown [capitulation], and each had different German abilities. After two weeks, we decided to speak only German in all situations. For many this was a difficult and uncomfortable demand, but we succeeded’.53

The strict language policies are echoed in historian Frank Lubowitz’s collection of memories of former students at the college, published in 2005. One former student recalled: A large part of the young people only knew very little German. They reinforced that we only spoke German. If one was caught speaking Danish, it was noted down. Five times ‘Danish’ and one had to spend the weekend at the college as punishment. Georg and I once had to do that.54

Besides the strong focus on the German language, Carstensen mentioned the singing of patriotic songs and folk dancing as important activities in Tinglev.55 The extracts from the two publications about the college in Tinglev shed light on the ways in which the German-minority establishment attempted to influence young people. The archive of the youth association, Jugendverband, can elaborate, however, on the context in which the influence took place. Documents in the archive reveal that the minority faced more difficulties attempting to make young people aware of their German-ness. According to the documents, one

86  •  Beyond the Border

problem was the parents of young people and another was young people themselves. In February 1955, a group of high-profiled Germanminded men met in Tinglev and discussed ‘questions of youth’, which according to the chairman of Jugendverband, Jes Schmidt, were ‘urgent and only possible to solve though a joint effort’.56 At the meeting, Frederik Christensen said: Clearly what is lacking is the will [to belong] to the German people, the will [to acknowledge] biological forces, the will to be faithful … There is a lack of confidence in the German way of life … The will to Germanness of parents must be awakened.57

Others at the meeting pointed to the fact that the Danish state ‘made life easy for its youth’ and that the German minority needed to assume this role towards its youth, assisting in securing education opportunities and stipends.58 In a letter that followed up on the meeting, Jes Schmidt wrote that the minority would continue to encourage all German parents to place their children in the minority’s schools and establish employment counselling in all of North Schleswig.59 In the same way that broader societal changes in West Germany partially explains how opinions on remilitarisation could differ so strongly, the notion that the Danes made life ‘too easy’ for young people was perhaps also a result of massive post-war changes in Denmark. Historians Thomas Ekman Jørgensen and Steven L.B. Jensen have argued that ‘the Danish society was different from Adenauer’s West Germany and de Gaulle’s France [because] since 1945 large social reforms had created a social democratic society where the state provided the framework for the free individual and economic development’.60 The changes that took place in the 1950s in Denmark included not only a new understanding of the former archenemy, Germany, but also provided a context for life of more choice and individual freedom. At the same time as the minority establishment met in Tinglev to discuss the youth-related issues, the signing of the Copenhagen Declaration took place, and the minority was granted the right to establish a secondary school that could issue exams that gave graduates access to tertiary education in Denmark. The prospect to once again be able to operate a German secondary school was welcomed, although not without hesitation, as Christensen stated in 1956 Have the Danish people finally accepted that a German group lives within their borders, and will they grant this group free development of its cultural life, that is the spiritual and mental connection to the German nation?61

Unlikely Cold War Allies  •  87

F.G. Kolberg also received the Copenhagen Declaration with some scepticism. He wrote: Only the future will show to what extent the Copenhagen Declaration will have any influence on our lives in North Schleswig, in relation to whether our youth will be able to work in the public sector. In any case, the exam right gives us the possibility and the precondition for assuming certain positions.62

Permission on paper to establish a secondary school was one thing; the actual establishment was quite another. The school and language association had to find a construction site, purchase it and pass planning through the council. They had to raise money, hire teachers, secure a student base as well as work out a curriculum appropriate in both a minority and the Danish context. Those sizeable challenges aside, the minority had time on its side. By the mid 1950s, the postwar economy had changed for the better, while majority hostility had calmed somewhat, at least on the institutional level. When the night school finally opened, in 1959, the German-minority paper, Der Nordschleswiger, commented: We believe that many young North Schleswigers will find their ways in the German secondary school as this is a very special secondary school. It provides access for young people not only to the Danish but also to the German cultural spheres. It provides access to higher education in Danish as in German universities. That is why our secondary school is particularly suitable; the spirit of a broadened horizon for our students is almost all of Europe.63

In 1959, the secondary school was established in an existing school building in Aabenraa already owned by the minority. In 1960, however, the minority was able to purchase a plot of land where a new and modern building could be built. In connection with the purchase of the land from the town of Aabenraa, Der Nordschleswiger noted: This proposal was, as already stated, unanimously approved. On behalf of the German fraction [in the city council] Councilman Hans Thiellesen thanked [the council] for the responsiveness, help and willingness to resolve difficulties. Mayor Erik Jessen acknowledged the gratitude.64

The institutional relationship between minority and majority clearly showed signs of improvement. The fact that the city council approved the purchase of the construction site and, as such, also approved to the construction of a new German secondary school in Aabenraa was a clear example that the Danish state lived up to the obligations of the Copenhagen Declaration too.

88  •  Beyond the Border

That said, there were voices in the public debate that criticised the establishment of a new secondary school. One of the most prominent figures of the Danish Border Association (Grænseforeningen), Frederik Rudbeck, commented on the German-minority’s expanding school system in North Schleswig: It is nothing new that, in rather harsh ways, the minority recruits students for their schools. We have not forgotten the time before and during the war … The way he covertly gives speeches that say one thing but mean another, Hans Schmidt [the minority’s representative in the Danish parliament] resembles his predecessor in the Danish parliament, Johannes Schmidt, the Janus Bifrons, who always had two different opinions ready.65

Rudbeck’s comment showed that critical Danish positions towards the minority still existed fifteen years after the end of the Second World War and the reconstruction of the minority’s political party, Slesvigsk Parti. In June 1962, when the first class of students graduated, Der Nordschleswiger followed and celebrated the event. The paper clearly communicated the sense of pride that a graduating class meant to the minority community. On 15 June, the paper wrote that there would be a reception for the graduates at the German Consulate. The paper also highlighted the importance of the class of 1962, as ‘clearly the hopefully many graduating classes of the German secondary school [would] look to the class of 1962’. The paper asserted that ‘this [was] how traditions [were] created’.66 Over the coming days, the paper listed all the names of the graduates and their future career plans67 and it described the festivities that followed the graduation ceremony as events where ‘one danced, laughed and was thrilled by the radiant faces of the seven young ladies and ten young gentlemen’.68 Some new opinions of young people surfaced in the paper’s coverage of the first graduating class too. On 22 June 1962, Der Nordschleswiger featured a large article in which all graduates answered different questions. One of the questions was whether or not the graduates believed that the German minority would continue to exist in the future. Most graduates responded without elaboration that the minority would continue to exist.69 One graduate, however, answered that ‘all minorities will disappear with time’.70 Another that: German identity in the border region will continue to exist. Not for political reasons, but because it is a question of family traditions, which are closely associated with the connection to both peoples. People in North Schleswig are more than anything North Schleswigers and not

Unlikely Cold War Allies  •  89

clearly defined Germans or Danes. But there will always be a stronger connection to one side or the other.71

Another student shared that view, arguing that the national identities of minorities were not constants: It is a question of the situation at any given time. There will be a lot of Germans in North Schleswig if things are going well for them. There will be fewer of them if things are going badly. This applies to all minorities.72

The positions of these two graduates were different from the ideal presented to young people by for example Christensen and the school and language association and Paul Koopmann at the college in Tinglev. But overall, the fact that the statement was included in the interview must mean that, by 1962, such a position was acceptable even if it might have been controversial. Alongside their statements in the interview in Der Nordschleswiger, that being German in North Schleswig did not equal isolation from the Danish majority, the German-minded graduates demonstrated this position with actions too. The class of 1962 adopted the Danish tradition of celebrating their exam by wearing white caps, decorated with a red ribbon and a small cross from the Danish coat of arms on a red and white cockade. The Danish graduation cap tradition started in the nineteenth century, and a similar tradition did not exist in Schleswig-Holstein.73 The red and white cockade, however, had its own history in the Schleswig-Holstein tradition. In the mid nineteenth century, when hostilities between the Danish monarchy and the Schleswig-Holstein independence movement peaked, red and white cockades were fitted to targets, for example in pubs, and guests could shoot at them with a blowpipe.74 Furthermore, red and white cockades were often seen pinned to monuments of infamy in German-minded areas of Schleswig.75 Whether or not the students were aware of the history of the cockade is less important. The fact is, that by wearing the caps the German-minority graduates at the same time adopted a symbol connected with the Danish nationality. The establishment’s reaction was mixed. Arthur Lessow, Christensen’s successor as chairman of the school association, said that ‘this should not be turned into a question of national struggle’.76 Nevertheless, the choice of the graduates to wear the caps was commented on by both the German and Danish minorities. An editorial in the Danish minority paper, Flensborg Avis, argued that if the German minority itself did not prevent the graduates from wearing the caps ‘certainly others should not object to it either’.77 The paper added:

90 • Beyond the Border

The Danish graduation cap obviously does not become German just because some Danish citizens who feel German wear it … On the other hand we must admit that we would not exactly be thrilled to see our South Schleswig youngsters from our Danish secondary school, DuborgSkolen, in Flensburg celebrating their exams by wearing German graduation caps.78

Now retired, Christensen followed the same line of thinking as Flensborg Avis. In a debate piece in Der Nordschleswiger, Christensen praised the Danish tradition of the red and white cap, mentioning that the cap symbolised not only graduation but also ‘full entry into the life of the nation’.79 He also praised the fact that graduates of DuborgSkolen wore the caps, seeing this as the student’s ‘right as Danish youth’.80 Christensen objected, however, to the German minority students adopting the tradition with the caps: We should let our Danish neighbours have their traditions and daily life. We should not envy them, rather perhaps admire them. That is part of the respect we have for their education. To greedily take over what is theirs, including their symbols, is the opposite. In my opinion we are getting too close to the Danes … Do we not have something which is our own?81

Once more, Christensen voiced his familiar perception of the relationship between Danish and German nationalities. He did not acknowledge fluidity between the two groups as legitimate. Not that he was anti-Danish; rather he favoured a clear distinction between the two groups. Towards the end of the article, Christensen also stated his opinion about the graduating class in general. He wrote that ‘if the caps [were] just symbols of vanity or childish fun, one could have found other ways, which [did] not lead to these unnecessary disputes.82 The class of 1962 did not appreciate Christensen’s opinion. The following day, Der Nordschleswiger published a reply to Christensen from the students. The students wrote that ‘[they were] too polite to use the same language as Mr Fr. Christensen’83 but that all were free to wear the caps or not. Furthermore, they argued that Germanminded graduates, attending the Danish secondary schools before the reconstruction of Deutsches Gymnasium in Aabenraa, had worn the caps for a number of years at the annual summer gathering at Knivsbjerg. The students stated: We do not see the cap as a national symbol. We wear it because we have passed a Danish exam. This way we show that our exam is equal to one from a Danish secondary school. We wear the cap with joy and with pride, and we believe that most people see things the same way we do, and are happy for us.84

Unlikely Cold War Allies • 91

Figure 2.1 German-minority graduates with caps, 1964. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

Figure 2.2 German-minority graduates without caps, 1962. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

92 • Beyond the Border

Christensen, however, was not finished. The following day, he wrote that his first article was written when he realised that ‘the rumour had become reality’. According to Christensen, more people had been offended by the incident, and he considered the collective reply to his article to be ‘unfriendly and insulting’.85 The cap incident had several implications. The Copenhagen Declaration meant that the German minority once more was allowed to operate secondary education. But the conservative establishment overwhelmingly continued to see Danish and German nationalities as two distinct identities. They hoped that the new school would strengthen the minority’s internal coherence and prevent the Germanminded youth being assimilated by the Danish majority. The students, however, perceived their relationship with the majority differently. The interview in Der Nordschleswiger and the wearing of Danish graduation caps indicated that the students rejected the idea that Danes and Germans should live in isolation from one another. The case with the graduation caps was in fact the realisation of what chairman of the Jugendverband, Jes Schmidt, had argued in a speech at the association’s annual spring gathering in 1959. In his speech, Schmidt addressed a claim that ‘young German North Schleswigers [were] no longer interested in national questions’.86 According to Schmidt, young people in general were not interested in the old national struggle between Danes and Germans but instead ‘they [were] interested in sport, jazz, mechanics and travelling’.87 He said: And what do these new tendencies mean? They mean that the age of the national struggle in the Danish–German border region is in the past … that Danes and Germans today in many ways are in the same boat. This is the case militarily but also economically.88

Schmidt finished by arguing that the minority neither should nor could isolate itself; instead, in his opinion, it should seek cooperation with both Denmark and Germany. The difference between the content of the speech in 1959 and previous positions of Jugendverband was clear. Where the establishment previously argued for the strengthening of a particular German awareness in isolation from the majority, Schmidt – by 1959 – argued that more openness was necessary. The blunter nature of the positions voiced in the minutes from 1955, could perhaps be explained partially by the fact that the documents were from a confidential meeting where opinions may have been presented more directly. Nonetheless, Volkskalender also presented similar positions in a printed form, available to all.

Unlikely Cold War Allies  •  93

The Danish and German minorities were both influenced by the Cold War, by Denmark and West Germany now being allies in NATO and by the two minority declarations that followed. The Cold War alliance was not the only political influence coming from outside the border region: as discussed in the next chapter, the idea of a united Europe also left its mark on the relationship between the national groups in Schleswig. Nevertheless, the implications were multi-directional. In South Schleswig, some youths accepted surprisingly quickly the necessity of serving time in the reconstructed West German army in order to protect Western Europe against Russia; but the new political reality challenged the core conceptualisation of Germans as the main enemy. In North Schleswig, the Copenhagen Declaration meant that the German minority could once again issue its own secondary exams, providing young people access to tertiary education; but whereas some hoped that a German secondary school would prevent further assimilation of German-minority youths, young people themselves adopted a Danish tradition and stated that they did not wish to practice the isolation idealised by the establishment.

Notes  1. Einhorn, ‘The Reluctant Ally’.  2. See, for example: Geyer, ‘West-German Opposition’.   3. Robert Bohn in particular has developed this argument in his research. See: Bohn, ‘Die politischen Beziehungen‘; or in English: Bohn, ‘Wartime Enemies’.   4. See in particular: Witte, ‘København–Bonn Erklæringerne’; or for an introduction in English: Kühl and Weller, Minority Policy in Action.  5. Henningsen, Klatt and Kühl, SSW – Dansksindet politik, 216.   6. In 1951, a treaty between Denmark and West Germany was described in a personal memorandum by the chairman (Jacob Petersen), of the Danish association (Sprogforeningen), as ‘the worst that could happen’. See: LAS: RA 1055, 1055/6: ‘Jakob Petersen: Personligt memorandum. Mindretallets stilling nord for grænsen’ (1 July 1951).  7. For discussions of the rearmament of West Germany see, for example: Dockrill, Britain’s Policy for West German rearmament; Large, Germans to the Front; and Grünbacher, The Making of German Democracy.   8. DCBS: P 398-8a. ‘Karl Christiansen: Tysklands remilitarisering: underskriftindsamling vedr. særstilling for danske sydslesvigere samt taler og artikler., 1954–55’. [hereafter KC]: ‘Underskriftindsamling’.  9. Grænsen (1951), 2–4. ‘Karl Christensen, Jeg siger nej til Den tyske Uniform – Ung dansk sydslesviger om sin stilling til Tysklands genoprustning’. 10. Ibid., 3.

94  •  Beyond the Border

11. Ibid., 4. 12. Flensborg Avis (21 March 1953). ‘J.K.: Remilitariseringen vedtaget, men nye vanskeligheder forude’. 13. Judt, Postwar, 244. 14. Lammers, ‘Living Next Door to Germany’, 458. 15. Kershaw, To Hell and Back, 474. 16. DCBS: P 398-8a: KC: ‘Copy of statement made by the Danish foreign secretary’ (19 October 1954). 17. DCBS: P 398-8a: KC: ‘Letter from Karl Christiansen to SSF’s Chairman, Bøgh-Andersen’ (13 October 1954). 18. Front og Bro (November 1954), 238. ‘Melf-Ingwer Holm: Nye Veje’. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Front og Bro (December 1954), 275. ‘F.T.: Nye Veje, Ohne Uns’. 23. Ibid., 276. 24. Flensborg Avis (25 January 1955). ‘Bøgh-Andersen, De unge Sydslesvigere og Tysklands Oprustning’. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. DCBS: P 398-8a: KC: Letter from Bundesminister für Verteidigung to Südschleswigen Wählerverbund (2 August 1956). 28. Treklangen (September 1956), 83. ‘Gerhard Wehlitz: Danske sydslesvigere – tyske soldater – Omkring værnepligten’. 29. Treklangen (1956), 21–22. ‘Angår det os?’. 30. Vulkanen (January–February 1957). ‘Militærtjeneste’. 31. Ibid. 32. Grænsen (April 1957), 8. ‘Grænsekampens gamle form duer ikke mere: Hvad unge sydslesvigere mener’. 33. Ibid. 34. Ibid. 35. See: DCBS: F 141-41. ‘F.D.F. og F.P.F, 1953–79’. 36. DCBS: P 398-8a: KC: ‘Hand-written note on potential reasons why young people volunteer’. 37. Vulkanen (February 1960), 19. ‘En der skal ind I april: Ligeberettigelse’. 38. Vulkanen (June 1962), 19–21. ‘Santa Claus: Ligeberettigelse???’. 39. See in particular: Grünbacher, The Making of German Democracy; but also Judt, Postwar; and Mazower, Dark Continent. 40. Mazower, Dark Continent. 41. See: Müller, West Germans against the West. 42. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1954), 21. ‘Hans Schmidt-Gorsblock: Wir bleiben was wir sind!’. 43. Hansen, ‘Kontaktudvalget for det tyske Mindretal’. 44. OHI: TWS (30 July 2013): German-minority male born 1940; OHI: TWS (18 June 2014): German-minority male born 1943; and OHI: TWS (3 February 2014): German-minority male born 1935.

Unlikely Cold War Allies • 95

45. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1956), 93. ‘F.G. Kolberg: Bereite Dich für das Leben vor!’. 46. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1956), 90. 47. Heimatverbunden, Festschrift, 23. 48. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1964), 84–85. ‘Dr Paul Koopmann: Nachschule und Volkshochschule Tingleff’. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Heimatverbunden, Festschrift, 31. 52. Ibid., 30. 53. Ibid., 11. 54. Johannsen, ‘Plauderei Lehrgang 1955/56’. 55. Ibid. 56. ADV: DJVN: ‘Protokoll der 1. Gemeinsammes Besprechung nordschleswiger Verbände zur Nachwuchsfrage der Volksgruppe (Vertraulich)’ (12 February 1955). 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. ADV: DJVN: ‘Letter from Jes Schmidt to Die Herren Teilnehmer and der Nachwuchsplannung der Volksgruppe’ (2 March 1955). 60. Jensen and Ekman Jørgensen, ‘1968 i Danmark’, 240. 61. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1956), 92. ‘Fr. Christensen: Stand und gesetzliche Grundlagen der deutschen Schule Nordschleswig’. 62. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1956), 93. ‘F.G. Kolberg: Bereite Dich für das Leben vor!’. 63. Der Nordschleswiger (8 August 1959). ‘Wieder ein deutsches Gymnasium’. 64. Der Nordschleswiger (29 October 1960). ‘Gymnasium-Baugrund jetzt gesichert’. 65. Jyllandsposten (26 July 1960). ‘Fr. Rudbeck, Målet for tysk skole i Nordslesvig’. 66. Der Nordschleswiger (15 June 1962). ‘Wieder deutsche Abiturienten’. 67. Der Nordschleswiger (22 June 1962). ‘Feststimmung im deutschen Gymnasium’. 68. Der Nordschleswiger (25 June 1962). ‘Nach Abiturstrapazen fröhlich beim Tanz’. 69. Der Nordschleswiger (22 June 1962). ‘Ernst G. Engelhart: Zum ersten Male seit 1945: Deutscher Abiturienten im Brennpunkt’. 70. Ibid. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Pedersen, Europaklassen Tønder, 98. 74. Adriansen, Nationale symboler, 312–13. 75. Ibid., 313. 76. Der Nordschleswiger (26 June 1962). ‘Fr. Christensen: Die rot-weißen Mützen’. 77. Flensborg Avis (22 June 1962). ‘Studenterhuen’. 78. Ibid.

96  •  Beyond the Border

79. Der Nordschleswiger (26 June 1962). ‘Fr. Christensen: Die rot-weißen Mützen’. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid. 83. Der Nordschleswiger (27 June 1962). ‘Die Abiturienten des Jahrgangs 1962: Antwort an Fr. Christensen’. 84. Ibid. 85. Der Nordschleswiger (28 June 1962). ‘Fr. Christensen: Noch einmal die rot-weißen Mützen’. 86. ADV: DJVN: ‘Bericht des Hauptvorstandes, Frühjahrstagung des Deutschen Jugendverbandes’ (1959). 87. Ibid. 88. Ibid.

Bibliography Adriansen, Inge. Nationale symboler i det danske rige 1830–2000. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums, 2003. Bohn, Robert. ‘Die politischen Beziehungen Westdeutschlands zu Dänemark und Norwegen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg’. In Der Ostseeraum – vom Zweiten Weltkrieg zum Kalten Krieg, edited by Robert Bohn, Thomas Wegener Friis and Michael Scholz, 83–104. Middelfart: Forlaget Friis, 2005. ———. ‘From Wartime Enemies to Alliance Partners: The Remodelling of West Germany’s Political Relationship with Denmark and Norway after the Second World War’. Contemporary European History 15, no. 4 (Special Issue) (2006): 539–51. Dockrill, Saki. Britain’s Policy for West German Rearmament 1950–1955. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Einhorn, Eric S. ‘The Reluctant Ally: Danish Security Policy 1945–49’. Journal of Contemporary History 10, no. 3 (1975): 493–512. Geyer, Michael. ‘The Case of West-German Opposition to Rearmament and Nuclear Weapons’. In The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949–1968, edited by Hanna Schissler, 376–408. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Grünbacher, Armin. The Making of German Democracy: West Germany during the Adenauer Era, 1945–65. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010. Hansen, Hans Schultz. ‘Kontaktudvalget for det tyske Mindretal – oprettelsen og de første år 1965–1973’. Sønderjyske Årbøger, (2011): 161–90. Heimatverbunden. Festschrift zum 25järigen Bestehen der NachschuleJugendvolkshochschule in Tingleff. Aabenraa: H. Mordieck, 1976. Henningsen, Lars N., Martin Klatt and Jørgen Kühl. SSW – Dansksindet politik i Sydslesvig 1945–1998. Flensborg: Studieafdelingen ved dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 1998.

Unlikely Cold War Allies • 97

Jensen, Steven L.B. and Thomas Ekman Jørgensen. ‘1968 i Danmark’. In 1968: Ungdomsrevolte & global protest, edited by Norbert Frei, 239–260. Slagelse: Ellerkær, 2008. Johannsen, Gerd. ‘Plauderei Lehrgang 1955/56’. In 100 Jahre Nordschleswiger Volkshochshuleverein, edited by Frank Lubowitz, 238–39. Apenrade: Heimatkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Nordschleswig, 2005. Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. London: Vintage, 2010. Kershaw, Ian. To Hell and Back: Europe, 1914–1949. Milton Keynes: Allen Lane, 2015. Kühl, Jørgen and Marc Weller. Minority Policy in Action: The Bonn–Copenhagen Declarations in a European Context, 1955–2005. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues, 2005. Lammers, Karl Christian. ‘Living Next Door to Germany: Denmark and the German Problem’. Contemporary European History 15, no. 4 (2006): 453–72. Large, David C. Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era. Chapel Hill, London: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Mazower, Mark. Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century. 1st ed. London: Penguin Books, 1999. Müller, Christoph Hendrik. West Germans against the West: anti-Americanism in Media and Public Opinion in the Federal Republic of Germany 1949–68. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Pedersen, Karen Margrethe. Europaklassen Tønder – Niebüll: Rapport om en grænseoverskridende dansk – tysk forsøgsklasse 2003–2006. Sønderborg: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2010. Witte, Jørgen. ‘København–Bonn Erklæringerne: Den statspolitiske baggrund’. In København–Bonn Erklæringerne, 1955–2005: De dansk-tyske mindretalserklæringers baggrund, tilblivelse og virkning, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 219–68. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, Syddansk Universitet, 2005.

O3 New Ideas of a United Europe

Generational Differences on Being Danish, German and European, c. 1955–63

In the late 1950s and early 1960s – alongside the partnership of Denmark and West Germany in NATO – the idea of a united Europe became another significant political influence on the minorities. In essence, the notion of European unity derived from the goal of making a future European war impossible by integrating Europe through the establishment of various institutions and agreements.1 In 1949, the Council of Europe was formed and, in 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community followed.2 In 1956, six European countries signed the Rome Treaty, the foundation of the European Economic Community, the EEC, and the European nuclear cooperation, the Euratom.3 In 1958, the first session of the European parliamentary assembly was held and, in 1961, the assembly became the European Parliament.4 EFTA, the European Free Trade Association was formed in 1959 by another group of European countries.5 It looked as if the continent was heading towards becoming ever more united, but in 1963, the French president, Charles de Gaulle, vetoed British accession to the European Economic Community. This marked the end of a period of ‘Euro-optimism’ when closer integration seemed almost inevitable. From 1963 onwards, the aspirations of a united Europe were challenged.6 In Schleswig, the idea of a united Europe was of greater significance than the actual developments. It was what was believed to be happening more than what actually did happen that influenced the minorities in the Danish–German border region. On the surface, the

New Ideas of a United Europe • 99

Danish and German minorities responded to the European ideas in almost opposite ways. In North Schleswig, Europe became a conduit for redefining a German-minority identity that could encompass loyalty to both Denmark and Germany. At the same time, Europe offered a legitimate basis and explanation for a shift away from the minority’s National Socialist past. Through Europe, the German minority could display a clearly defined purpose both internally in the group and externally to the majority population. In South Schleswig, however, the concept of European unity did not fit the Danish minority’s hitherto worldview. Similar to how the NATO alliance challenged the core conceptualisation of Germans as the enemy, Europe challenged the minority’s definition of Germans as the national opponent. In a united Europe, national struggles would become redundant; a reality clearly incompatible with the core Danish-minority identity, and the focus on South Schleswig’s reunification with Denmark. What is more, the different perceptions of Europe also derived from the fact that West Germany was a driving force behind European integration, while Denmark stood outside. This meant that the Danish minority – as residents of West Germany – perceived the prospect of living in a united Europe as much more likely. Denmark’s future place in Europe was more uncertain, meaning that the German minority’s position was essentially speculative. Despite the fundamentally opposite positions on Europe, similarities between the German and Danish minorities existed too. Both minorities saw European unity as the inevitable future during this period. Furthermore, Europe also set new ideas and practices in motion that brought the minorities closer to one another. Young people’s opinions on Europe did not form a clearly distinguishable discourse in any of the two minorities: some youths favoured the ideas of Europe; others opposed them. Most did not even actively engage with Europe, but they were still part of minorities who were influenced by the idea that a united Europe would, with time, replace the nation-state.

The German Minority’s Acceptance of the Idea of a United Europe For the German minority, the question of national loyalty remained a primary challenge to the development of a coherent post-war minority identity. There were several aspects to this. First, the relationship with Germany was troubled. By the late 1950s, the minority had existed just

100 • Beyond the Border

short of forty years – or barely two generations. Nevertheless, it had already outlived two different German states. Separated initially from Prussia and the Second German Empire, the minority had witnessed the rise and fall of both the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Now witnessing the fourth German state in the living memory of most adults, a strong connection to the new West German republic did not develop automatically. Second, there was the minority’s relationship with Denmark. After capitulation in 1945, the minority’s institutions were reconstructed within the framework of an overarching umbrella organisation, Bund Deutscher Nordschleswiger, (BDN). The founders of BDN were influential individuals who were unaffiliated to Nazism.7 They based the statutes of BDN on a manifesto from 1943, made by a group of wellto-do individuals from Haderslev who rejected National Socialism and declared unconditional loyalty to the Danish state.8 Since 1945, the unambiguous loyalty to the Danish state was a fundamental principle in all official German-minority positions. German-minority identity had to encompass loyalty to Denmark as citizens and to Germany as members of the German nation. Combining the two national loyalties was difficult in practice. The minority was also challenged by the fact that some people conceptualised national identity as static and unchangeable, while many changed their national identity in practice. As politician Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll argued in 1956 in the Volkskalender, being German was not a choice. Schmidt-Oxbüll wrote: ‘We are Germans, independent of whether Germany is victorious or defeated; powerful or weak, we are born into this and being German is our nature’.9 He perceived national identity to be a constant in a person’s life, despite the fact that in reality many changed their national loyalty, if not to a Danish one, at least away from a German one. At the same time, the strong regional connections to North Schleswig, including the presence of Danish and German affiliations in most families and the dominance of the Low Danish vernacular as the home language in German-minority families, stimulated the abandonment of the already ambiguous German connections. For overcoming these identity ambiguities, the ideas of a united Europe were ideal. In the same way that Europe provided a way back onto the political stage in West Germany,10 the minority’s adoption of the idea of Europe made it possible to combine Danish and German loyalties. In the words of Schmidt-Oxbüll in 1956: ‘Schleswig could become a role model … that is “being German” means to work as

New Ideas of a United Europe • 101

Germans for a European, a German–Danish community in Borderland Schleswig’.11 The German minority’s acceptance of the idea of a united Europe was communicated in particular in the publication, Grenzfriedenshefte published by the Grenzfriedensbund, a German border association in Flensburg. In 1961, for example, much of the publication was dedicated to topics concerning increased European cooperation, and the introduction states: ‘Politics is destiny’ said Napoleon I, to which the socialist, Rudolf Hilferding, later argued ‘economy is destiny’. Everything concerning the EEC and EFTA is about economy and politics. Politics and economy is Europe – and Europe is our destiny.12

Another author of an article in the 1961 issue of Grenzfriedenshefte, Oswald Hauser, wrote about nations and states in European politics. Hauser mentioned explicitly that, in the past, Germany had experienced both unity and disunity because of nationalism. Furthermore, he argued that in most states, the homeland was congruent with nation and people. In border regions, however, ‘homeland [meant] two or more nations living together’.13 He argued that ‘in the Danish–German border region, Europe [was] the synthesis between people and state’.14 Hauser’s finishing remarks read: It is beautiful to love one’s fatherland and do everything for it, but it is more beautiful, much more beautiful, to be a human and to regard everything human higher than everything to do with the fatherland.15

Hauser supported the idea of Europe while at the same time rejecting nationalism. Focusing on Europe became a way for Germans to distance themselves from the National Socialist past. In addition, European cooperation in a more concrete way influenced the minorities as well. The Danish and German minorities both became affiliated with the European-wide association for national minorities, The Federal Union of European Nationalities, FUEN, in the context of which, the idea of Danish–German opposition was challenged from a new angle. Founded in Paris in 1949, the same year as the European council, FUEN was an association that represented national minorities in post-war Europe.16 The association’s main event was its annual conference, at which the affiliated minority groups discussed and passed resolutions. The conferences took place in different locations every year. Danish and German influence on the union was substantial: its secretariat was located in Denmark, north of Copenhagen, and the

102 • Beyond the Border

secretary-general, Poul Skadegaard, was a Dane; furthermore, the German-minority politician, Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll, served as elected president of the union during this period; finally, in 1962, the FUEN annual conference was held in Flensburg. The conference included a visit to the German minority north of the border. FUEN was most significant because the Danish and German minorities became partners within its context. The essence of FUEN was its efforts to strengthen the rights of all European minorities in their host states. In principal, one minority or host state was not seen as being different from other ones. Becoming partners in this joint minority effort on a Europe-wide level challenged (again) mainly the Danish-minority isolationist discourse, and the perception of Germans as the opponent. For the German minority, on the other hand, the union – similar to the idea of Europe – fitted much better with the aims and aspirations that the restructured minority in North Schleswig formulated after the Second World War. The different Danish and German positions within the FUEN framework can, for example, be found in the minutes from the union’s fifth conference, in Cardiff, in 1955. Hesitant over the union’s effort to secure the rights of German minorities and displaced groups in Europe, the minutes report that ‘Mr. Hans Ronald Jørgensen, South Schleswig, stressed the importance of managing the union in a many-sided way, and warned against a development favourizing [sic.] a special East European influence’.17 The minutes report that the German minority’s perspective differed. They read: Mr. Hans Schmidt, North Schleswig, wanted the West to show the minorities of Eastern Europe a good example as to freedom and humanity, and suggested a commission to be set up charged with elaborating in cooperation with experts a draft minority convention. He found minority conditions in Schleswig now to be ideal.18

Judging from the resolutions passed by FUEN in the early 1960s, the minority union truly became a forum where the idea of a united Europe was accepted, and even flourished. In 1959, the union’s first resolution of the ninth congress in Aachen (Germany) demanded that all minority children should be able to receive education in their own language in their home region.19 In 1960 however, the union began focusing on Europe: The congress is convinced that Europe can only be achieved on the foundation of a federation of its people … and not on the foundation of the existing states, which are mostly the result of coincidence, coalitions of interests, conquests or ruse.20

New Ideas of a United Europe  •  103

In 1961, the congress stated that minorities did not form an opposition to nation-states, but that ‘in cooperation with majorities, they [wished] to be made equal partners in the shaping of a united Europe’.21 Finally, in 1965, the union stated that ‘the 15th Congress of the FUEN, united at Leeuwarden on 12th June 1965, [expressed] the hope that one near day all Europe will be united in one political, economic and human community.22 To begin with, however, FUEN was rather detached from both Schleswig and young people, thus its direct influence on minority youth should be questioned. In the Danish–German border region, neither minority group supported the European ideal as much as the resolutions of FUEN indicate. Nevertheless, the increasing – however reluctant – acceptance of a new European reality in Schleswig came to resonate with FUEN’s idealisation of a united Europe. The Germanminority representatives in FUEN accepted more readily than the Danish ones the common minority framework, as is made clear in the speech by Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll, FUEN’s -German-minority president, at the congress in Flensburg in 1962. Schmidt-Oxbüll spoke about the minorities’ place in Europe: We live in times of the beginning of a European unity … [and] it is becoming clearer that, today, the minorities – and also the majorities – must reshape their political relationships, in their own best interest. Such reshaping means a transition from border struggle to compromise, from opposition to partnership.23

Back in North Schleswig, young people were not generally engaged with the debates on Europe. In fact, the German-minority youth was not involved in activities of a political nature, at least not within the framework of the minority’s organisations and institutions. The statutes of the German Youth Association of 1948, state clearly its apolitical nature as well as its focus on sports and gymnastics.24 The reasons for the apolitical nature were found in the minority’s recent past. The collapse of the wartime hyper-politicised minority associations and activities seemingly left young people disillusioned with politics or, at least, such was the assessment of the establishment. In 1955, Koopmann wrote about the relationship between young people and politics and suggested that the defeat in 1945 had been so devastating that it highlighted ‘the meaningless character of idealism’.25 Therefore, Koopmann argued, ‘one should be careful with passing judgment on young people for not taking an interest in politics and engaging themselves with our borderland questions’.26

104  •  Beyond the Border

Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that Europe became a part of the consciousness of some German-minority youths. At the college in Tinglev, for example, Europe was put forward as an ideal alongside the school’s traditional German focus. As argued in Chapter 2, the school focused strongly on fostering a clear German consciousness in its students; but in a 1962 film made by the school itself, Europe was mentioned too. As the pictures show a scene from a student trip to Frankfurt airport where they observe aeroplanes landing and departing, the narrator comment that ‘at this point it [became] clear to us: no people can exist in isolation anymore. Our future is called Europe, and this future has already begun’.27 Furthermore, Europe was mentioned in Der Nordschleswiger’s interview with the first graduates from the German secondary school in Aabenraa. Three youths mentioned the consequences of Europe for the minorities in the border region. Hans N. said that ‘on the way to federal Europe, the minorities [would] gradually disappear’; Erwin I. said that ‘the idea of unity in Europe [would] lead to the disappearance of minorities in our lifetime’; finally, Hans-Anton N. believed ‘that a dissolving of the minority [was] likely, the closer one [got] to a united Europe’. None of the interviewed students elaborated on their views, but no other perceptions of Europe were offered. It may seem paradoxical that the establishment advocated European unity, while some students argued that European unity would cause the minority to dissolve. But the minority’s positions on Europe were indeed conflicting. More than anything, Europe in North Schleswig was a way in which the minority could sustain a connection to Germany while maintaining its loyalty to Denmark. At the same time, however, all talks of a united Europe remained speculation as long as Denmark did not enter the EEC. Thus for the time being, different opinions on the ways in which the European idea should be made reality in North Schleswig were allowed sufficient room to include the many conflicting positions. This was also clear when Günter Weitling, a 26-year-old German-minority student of theology, wrote about the problems of the younger generation in North Schleswig and later was invited to discuss Europe with representatives of the German minority’s establishment. In 1961, Europe became associated with the call for re-engaging young people with political questions. Günter Weitling broke the silence in the public debate about youth and politics, arguing that this absence of political awareness was not exclusive to the German minority. In his piece, entitled ‘The History-less Generation’, Weitling argued that:

New Ideas of a United Europe • 105

Young people in the West are in a similar situation to us, where ideals – about which youth at all times have been passionate about, be they religious, national or the like – are missing completely. This generation suffers from the fact that it has never experienced the nation [Volkstum] and they are sick of the problems following from politics, including the Danish–German borderland questions.28

Weitling described himself as part of this history-less generation, albeit he did not see himself as a spokesperson of contemporaneous youth. He saw himself rather as someone who understood the youngest generation and through his own experiences could help determine a way to re-engage young people in politics. For this purpose, Weitling used Europe as the overarching purpose. Weitling spoke about ‘a new phase’. He described the German minority as characterised by having had to define and assert itself multiple times since 1920. The first assertion had taken place in 1920 and the second after 1945. Now, Weitling argued, following from the assertion of loyalty to the Danish state, it was time for a new minority consciousness.29 This new consciousness, he believed, should include the minority’s place in a united Europe and a specific role for young people. Writing in metaphors, Weitling described how in United Europe the German minority should see itself as an island in the river flowing between a Danish and a German bank. On this island, young people could be the pillar of a bridge connecting the two banks. With his metaphor, Weitling articulated for the first time the idea that Germanminority youths somehow possessed an identity flowing somewhere in between Danish and German. In his own words: The dilemma of this generation is the feeling of not belonging to one or the other nation. One is constantly reminded of this. He who has experienced being considered a foreigner in both Denmark and Germany, he knows how to relate to this distress.30

Weitling’s article caused reactions even on the other side of the border. A long article in the Danish-minority daily, Flensborg Avis, featured only a day later and containing an almost literal translation, accentuated the significance of Weitling’s article.31 Weitling’s article in Der Nordschleswiger also preceded by only a few days the annual Youth Association conference. Alongside the priest, Hans Raun, and the headmaster of the college in Tinglev, Paul Koopmann, young Weitling was one of the speakers at the conference. The three men all addressed the importance of European unity. Der Nordschleswiger described the day in the following way:

106  •  Beyond the Border

The serious debates – based on a resolute will to self-assertion, to preservation of ancestral nationality and to promotion of German life – subordinated the larger goal of European unification. This youth conference made a significant contribution to finding new ways of working in the spirit of a larger community of Europe.32

The conference contributions highlighted that fact that striving towards a larger European community was not unanimously accepted by the German minority. The focus on European unity was actually an overarching ambition through which more well-known ambitions for German-minded youths were presented. A closer look into the discussions suggests that the ideas of Europe were not only dissimilar but almost contradictory. Weitling actually presented a completely different idea for the minority than the two other speakers, Koopmann and Raun. Weitling favoured unity in Europe as a goal in its own right. In Der Nordschleswiger, he was quoted saying that ‘the entire minority effort must be coordinated with the greater goal of European unity’.33 Weitling thus suggested the introduction of a European dimension to German-minority identity. The other contributor, Raun, perceived the relationship between Europe and minority differently: Raun stated that in order to achieve a united Europe, young people should be aware of their own, unambiguous identity. His goal therefore was ‘to keep and to nourish our German nationality, our spirit and our character – to maintain our unity, and to win back the renegades that belong to us and show them the value of our living. The further goal is then to take this substance with us into a unity with the Danish people and the wider human family’.34 Pastor Raun argued that ‘in the Europe of the future, one can only become a real European if one brings to this great community something of one’s own; when one has something to offer’.35 Despite the overarching focus on the European community, that statement was actually incompatible with Weitling’s opinion. Weitling argued that ‘we young North Schleswigers are faced with the task of stepping out of our ghetto, in order to support the unification of people for peace in the world’.36 The two contributors’ arguments may have departed from the same idea; however, they clearly disagreed on how to reach that idea. The question was whether Raun believed more strongly in Europe as the goal or in the assertion of the minority as an unambiguously German group. The same could be said for Weitling, who argued both for Europe but also for the re-engagement of young people in political questions. In both cases, the idea of a united Europe perhaps

New Ideas of a United Europe • 107

was adopted mostly as a way of strengthening other arguments. Raun wanted to preserve the German characteristic of the minority; Weitling wanted to reintroduce political discussions and awareness to young people. Either way, the case shows that by the early 1960s the future unity of Europe seemed so certain that two opposite positions both adopted the idea. The third contributor, Paul Koopmann, positioned himself closer to Raun than to Weitling, although Koopmann also argued that the ‘current task [was] Europe’. In his lecture ‘Can we be more selfconfidently German?’ Koopmann pointed to the awareness of German history, culture and language as the prerequisite for growing into European unity.37 Finally, Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll also mentioned Europe and argued that ‘the work of Jugendverband should make young people become more confidently German, and thereby they [could] make their contribution to the united Europe that we strive towards’.38 Fundamentally, the youth conference in Tinglev demonstrated two things. First, the ideas of Europe were applied to arguments that were essentially incompatible: Weitling’s argument that minority youths should ‘step out of their ghetto’ mismatched Raun’s call for ‘maintaining unity and winning back the lost ones’. Both speakers, however, verbalised ‘united Europe’ as a phenomenon existing somewhere on the scale between a goal and the unavoidable future. This suggests the overarching but conflicting and equivocal adoption of the European ideas into German-minority identity. Second, the case illustrated the first signs of an emerging difference between the positions of young people and the establishment. Even if Weitling claimed he was not a spokesperson for the minority youth, he inspired a group of young people to re-engage with political questions.

The Danish Minority and the Unwelcome ‘United Europe’ Whereas the idea of a united Europe suited the German minority well, it challenged more fundamentally the core self-perception of the Danish minority. Europe was so much at odds with the Danish minority because essentially the minority held onto its isolationist tendencies and separatist aspirations. Where Europe – to the German minority – was compatible with the group’s need for an overarching goal and target, through which the minority’s existence could be made relevant and fit for the future, this was impossible in South Schleswig. The genuine mass-movement that the Danish minority had become

108  •  Beyond the Border

after the Second World War was founded on the aspiration of a border change. Even if that hope had vanished somewhat by the mid 1950s, the dream of South Schleswig’s annexation with Denmark remained a key aspect to Danish-minority identity for adults and youths alike. Of course, the positions on Europe of the two kin-states, Denmark and West Germany, played a role too. The German minority’s backing of a united Europe was fully compatible with West Germany’s role as an active driver for more integration. Denmark, on the other hand, stood outside the community of the Six. When it came to trade, Denmark relied mainly on Britain;39 and it sought cultural connections, with the other Nordic countries.40 As Danish-minority identity was tied explicitly to Denmark and its political policies and ideas – and perhaps also to the rejection of West German ideals and policies – Europe as a Danish-minority ideal was unmistakeably difficult to accept. The general opposition to Europe was manifested by adults and young people alike. No clear pattern distinguished the ways young people opposed Europe from the general opposition. In fact, if any division was to be drawn, this was impossible along generational lines. Moreover, most contributions to the debates about Europe – even in the publications for young people such as the youth association’s Treklangen and the student association’s Front og Bro – were not written by young people, the exception being the Danish secondary school’s student magazine Vulkanen. In the autumn of 1956, students at Duborg-Skolen discussed the ideas of Europe explicitly in Vulkanen. The discussions followed on from a visit by a former student, Karin Johannsen, to the school’s student association. A graduate of the class of 1954, Johannsen subsequently became a member of the minority’s student association for university students, FSS. Visiting Duborg-Skolen in 1957, Johannsen presented FFS’s ideas about the relationship to the German majority, which derived from the new, political order: Johannsen talked about ‘the new phase … [and] the human, wider- and border-political consequences’.41 During the visit, a discussion about potential contacts with students from the secondary schools in Flensburg had taken place too.42 The reactions in the following issues of Vulkanen opposed the idea of a new phase in Danish–German relations. In November, the editors wrote that many had criticised the October issue of the paper and they acknowledged there was ‘too much FSS material in [it]’.43 They did not acknowledge, however, the position of some critics, that FSS was irrelevant to students at Duborg-Skolen.44 In December 1956, one student, Ole Harck, accused ‘a small gang of revolutionaries’ of having hijacked the school paper. He argued:

New Ideas of a United Europe • 109

We are Danish South Schleswigers and not Europeans. This ‘united Europe’ idea may have become accepted by the Germans but not by the students of Duborg-Skolen.45

In the January–February 1957 issue, Harck wrote another article, with the title ‘South Schleswiger first, then European or citizen of the World’.46 He argued that a split in the Danish positions on Europe would undermine the general position of the Danish minority in South Schleswig. Furthermore, he presented the same argument that existed among the older generations of the German minority in North Schleswig, that ‘one should assert his national position first, before a united Europe can take shape on a national basis’.47 SdU’s official magazine for youth, Treklangen, contained similar views. In 1955, chairman of SdU, Franz Wingender, wrote: Except very few individuals, the Danish youth in South Schleswig is not concerned with the European idea. They do not feel that the common European problem is the most important one.48

According to Wingender, ‘the Danish youth in South Schleswig [sought] to practice the Danish and Nordic mindset and culture’.49 What is more, he did not believe that German dedication to the idea of a united Europe was genuine. He wrote: Does this not remind us of something in a not too distant past? … We can speak again when our national competitors can show us with their actual deeds that they respect people who think differently and they see self-determination as the foundation of democracy. The idea of Europe can only grow when – in a border region – the free will of a people is respected. We cannot say this is the case in South Schleswig yet.50

In 1957, Wingender’s successor as chairman of SdU, Gerhard Wehlitz, repeated the same positions at a meeting for girl and boy scouts in Haithabu, close to the town of Schleswig. Wehlitz argued that the youth of today were faced with several problems, but that ‘it [had] the following in common with the old youth: the Jutlandic truth, bravery and courage’.51 He disputed that young people should seek connections with Germans but argued that instead they should find their place in a ‘Danish everyday life’. He asserted: It takes faithfulness and strength. We want to move forward and stick together. We want to show that we are Danish and have a Nordic belonging. That is why we must stand together and work together. A living Danish-ness in South Schleswig exists, not least where young people are.52

110 • Beyond the Border

The scepticism towards a united Europe with Germany, and the presentation of a greater belonging to the other Nordic countries was not unique to the border region. In Denmark, some politicians and groups of the public attempted to present a Nordic alternative to European integration too. The idea of Scandinavian unity, Scandinavianism, was nothing new as such:53 the movement emerged in the nineteenth century, advocating unification of the Scandinavian countries based on their shared political backgrounds and common linguistic and religious backgrounds.54 Although Scandinavianism – unlike its German and Italian counterparts – never resulted in a Scandinavian state, Scandinavianism survived as an idea.55 The Danish minority embraced this idea, in particular as an alternative to the European one. However, not all young people opposed the ideas of Europe so fiercely. FSS’ articles on Europe in Front og Bro were characterised by a more analytical and less sentimental style than the ones in, for example, Treklangen. Furthermore, Front og Bro tended to apply a broader, global perspective. For example, in 1955, Poul Engberg, a Danish-minded teacher from North Schleswig, wrote: The idea of uniting nationally divided Europe is more pressing than ever. Two large confederations, the USA and the USSR, dominate the World … Western Europe cannot secure its freedom, unless it unites across the national borders which over the past 150 years have resulted in so much bloodshed and hatred.56

Engberg continued by arguing that the new ideas of Europe were incompatible with the border struggle. He highlighted that the border struggle belonged to the past because it divided Danes and Germans rather than helping to overcome national identities and create a supranational, European identity.57 Engberg also argued, however, that in reality human loyalties and feelings of belonging were not controlled by practical thinking, but by ‘deeper and less rational forces’.58 He suggested that ‘if Europe [was] to become a reality in the hearts of the Europeans … one must discover one’s particular identity and thereafter become a “national internationalist”’.59 This point was again relatively similar to the arguments that would be presented by the German minority in North Schleswig some years later. By 1957, however, Poul Engberg’s dedication to the ideas of Europe had developed. Engberg had become head of the Danish Snohøj Højskole in North Schleswig, a community college providing learning and leisure programmes for young people typically for periods of a few weeks to a couple of months. Before 1957, Snohøj focused mainly on gymnastics, but after 1957, it defined itself as a ‘Nordic-European

New Ideas of a United Europe • 111

Figure 3.1 Cover of Front og Bro, 1959. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

112 • Beyond the Border

community college’. According to Engberg, a Nordic identity was unmistakably linked to Christianity, which again was linked to Europe.60 He stressed that in one’s own national struggle, mankind should forget the rights of other nations to struggle for themselves, but that in the end, all were equal before God.61 He wrote: Today, the situation demands of us that we accentuate another aspect of the duality, that is, the Nordic people’s belonging within a Christian, European community … In the coming years, European cooperation in all fields will influence us and a USE (United States of Europe) is a possibility … We must shape our own view of Europe here in the North and together with the peoples of Europe. The new college will pave the way for young people’s understanding of how important it is to adapt to the new situation.62

In a 1959 issue of Front og Bro, another contributor, Johannes Novrup, recognised similar, conflicting feelings as a result of the European ideas. Novrup emphasised the importance of ‘bringing up Danish issues in ways that communicated Denmark’s connection to Europe or possibly all humanity’. Novrup stressed the consequences of nationalism’s complicated nature too. In comparison with culture of the eighteenth century, for example, he stated that ‘we cannot appreciate highly enough the nineteenth-century discovery of national distinctions and the attempts to build up societies based on releasing the power of the nation’. At the same time, he warned ‘we know what nationalism can lead to, but we are also anxious about the new [ideas]’.63 By the late 1950s, a growing perception of Europe as the future started to emerge in publications other than Front og Bro. An article in Grænsen from 1958 argues that ‘the European tidal wave’ meant that the Danish movement was forced to re-evaluate its ambitions.64 Two young Danish South Schleswigers are quoted in the article. One of them said: Circumstances force us to work for Danish culture in Germany without hoping for reunification. The border between Denmark and Germany must be overcome by individually making Denmark real in mind and actions, regardless of the size of the minority.65

The other young man approved: For the first time, I agree with you. I cannot see any alternative to the developments in South Schleswig in the perspective of growing European cooperation and a united Europe. Even though it may take years before all the plans are made real in every detail, moving the border is now redundant.66

New Ideas of a United Europe  •  113

Grænsen itself stated that such views were very ground-breaking but they accepted them at the same time.67 Even in Treklangen positions were different by the late 1950s. Not that the publication accepted united Europe as its ambition; rather it began discussing Europe as the unavoidable future. Fundamentally, Treklangen was still critical of the European idea. In 1958, it quoted a local chairman of the Danish Border Organisation, Grænseforeningen, who called for an ‘expansion and strengthening of the border struggle … if our people is to join the greater European cooperation’. 68 If this failed, he argued, ‘we will just tag along and eventually be wiped out’. In the same issue, a poem with the title: ‘A lot of people think that the national border struggle damages new, united Europe’ presented the same message: Now everything must be new-European, And everything national is pharisaic! And South Schleswig’s Danish-ness must be forgotten So that a new European-ness can be advanced I think it is all talk and pure theory It only leads to the writing of papers It is as if a builder wants To build the roof before the foundation is laid No, Europe must be founded on the principles That every nation must be respected as a nation And the nation whose home is Denmark Is also at home on the banks of the River Eider And thus: If the Danish-ness of South Schleswig is to be forgotten. The idea of Europe will never advance.69

The poem dismissed the ideas of Europe as ‘talk’ and ‘theory’, a derogatory description frequently applied by the more traditional part of the minority, to FSS, Front og Bro and others who sought to challenge the idea of the border struggle and a clear distinction between Danes and Germans. But the poem also made it evident that Treklangen no longer rejected the relevance of discussing Europe in the same way as it did in 1955. By the late 1950s, the idea of a united Europe seemed to have come so close to South Schleswig that – rather than rejecting it completely – the well-known ambition of expanding Danish-ness in South Schleswig was now connected to a united Europe as a necessary precondition. The feeling of a united Europe’s inevitability also dominated a large Danish-minority meeting in 1960, where the topic for discussion was ‘South Schleswig and Europe’.70 According to Flensborg Avis’ coverage of the event, the same positions on Europe as both regrettable and

114  •  Beyond the Border

inevitable were presented. Christian Stenz, a Danish-minded teacher from North Schleswig, argued that ‘if a united Europe [became] a reality, much would be lost and nothing would be gained’.71 He was quoted: I cannot free myself from the impression that tactical national reasons lie behind the Germans’ enthusiasm for Europe – that they want us to soften our national will so that one day we will drift into the other camp. We must become aware of the values we can surrender. We cannot surrender the most important, that is our Danish view on life.72

Another participant at the meeting, Ernst Meyer, a school headmaster from Medelby in South Schleswig, was quoted as having said: ‘I am not against the idea of Europe, but I believe it would be wise to remain on hold’.73 A third participant in the meeting, Karl Otto Meyer, opposed that position, by arguing that the minority should not let ‘what happened with the military service happen again’. Meyer said, ‘we should participate in shaping the new Europe’.74 The staunch opposition to Europe and to Germans did not disappear completely even though Europe as being inevitable became a more frequent position. In 1961, Treklangen featured a particularly harsh article on Europe.75 The article connected the ideas of Europe with both Nazism and communism, and it insisted that the Danish and the German peoples were too different to be able to coexist in the same united Europe. Furthermore, it argued that the difference between Danes and Germans was a constant since the Viking Age, when ‘the Danes lived as Viking peasants and the Germans as knights and raiders’.76 Europe, it argued, was ‘not a space for us’ because ‘communism of the East is European culture too’ and ‘all the Germans still wonder why small Denmark has not come ”Heim ins Reich”’.77 All the while Danish-minority discussions of Europe peaked, a very new reaction to the establishment’s persistence on the continuation of the national struggle was presented at Duborg-Skolen. A student in the editing group of the school paper, Kay Johannsen, wrote an article in Vulkanen that criticised the Danish minority for its national focus. Johannsen’s article was inspired by a Danish-minority round-table discussion with the title: ‘Are the days of the minority over?’78 According to Johannsen, the Danish-minority youth had been criticised by the establishment for not speaking enough Danish, and for ‘not taking interest in the national work’.79 Johannsen replied: Young people’s relationship with the nation today is a reaction against all that national malarkey, ruling everywhere down here during the first five to six years after the war. Today, I am disgusted when I see

New Ideas of a United Europe • 115

national slogans in red print across the pages of Flensborg Avis. And a large proportion of our most beautiful patriotic songs were ruined for me during that period of time.80

Furthermore, Johannsen reacted against two other Danish-minority positions: first, the argument that in mixed marriages between a Dane and a German, the Danish part should make sure to influence the other, and children of the marriage should be placed in Danish schools. Second, that although the Danish movement was optional for everyone in South Schleswig ‘it should be enforced with a kick’.81 Regarding those positions Johannsen commented: ‘it is a strange kind of Nordic, democratic spirit that grows down here’.82 The article ended with ‘to be continued’.83 Whereas the Danish minority accepted that some youths challenged the continued relevance of the border question, Johannsen’s attack on the minority was a step too far. In the next issue of Vulkanen, the title of the sequel to his article was printed, but in the text it said: ‘the abovementioned article, the continuation of Kay’s article in the previous edition, cannot be printed’.84 Kay Johannsen himself wrote on the following page: Unfortunately, time after time, the editors of the school paper have been denied the right to edit the paper in the spirit that they wanted to. And as I do not see any signs of this changing in the near future, I feel forced to leave.85

The incident revealed two things. First, young people did not speak with one voice only, and not everybody accepted the perpetuation of the distinction between Danes as Nordic and democratic, and Germans as the opposite. Second, however, the minority establishment – in this case Duborg-Skolen – closed down debates too critical of the Danish minority. Positions similar to Kay Johannsen’s did not resurface in Vulkanen until years later. On the other hand, there were signs elsewhere that the Danishminority establishment accepted the new situation, and that young people were involved to some degree too. By the early 1960s, when Britain applied for membership of the EEC, it looked as if Denmark would follow suit.86 The perceived inevitability of Europe gathered momentum in Schleswig, and several articles similar to the ones discussed above were published.87 In 1961, representatives from the Danish and German minorities even met in North Schleswig to discuss ‘The border region and the common market’.88 According to a report of the meeting by Lorenz Rerup, one of the first initiators of Front og Bro, several good and balanced discussions took place,

116  •  Beyond the Border

and ‘it was remarkable that it was even possible to have a meeting, mixing the languages Danish and German’.89 Rerup stated that ‘the most remarkable thing was that this kind of meeting [could] even take place; that the Danish and German minorities [could] meet and discuss peacefully’.90 He elaborated: In other conversations, one senses the mood of the opponent, and here and there a connection and an understanding of each other’s situation are formed … Europe has become smaller … [and] the European nations are more than ever in the same situation.91

One year later, a similar meeting for minority youth took place, this time organised by Jugendverband and the German minority. Young people were invited to Tinglev, where they ‘[discussed] in light of European unity … the position of the minorities to Denmark’s aspirations of joining the EEC’.92 According to Der Nordschleswiger the event was ‘a first official contact with youth from the Danish minority in South Schleswig’.93 Eventually, however, Danish membership of the EEC – and European unity more generally – did not prove to be as inevitable as it seemed in Schleswig in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In 1963, France vetoed British membership of the EEC and Denmark put its own application on hold. The European project, which seemed like the inevitable future, experienced its first, serious obstacle shaping an ever closer union, and a period stagnation in European integration began. Debates about Europe in the minorities’ publications died out in comparison to previous years. However, Treklangen wrote about the situation in March 1963: Is it not a joy that it became clear while there was still time, that it was we, who believed in the Europe of the nation states that were the realistic ones, while those who wanted to melt everything together were the idealistic romantics … Just let other nations amalgamate if they want to … We Nordic nations do not have this mediocre need.94

Treklangen’s position was as clear as ever. SdU’s official publication for young people expressed satisfaction with the fact that the Danish minority could circumvent a united Europe after all, and that a Danish/Nordic identity could be preserved. But in comparison to a few years earlier, SdU’s positions had in fact changed. In the same article, Treklangen also argued that ‘we must admit that there are good reasons for us Danes to set ourselves that goal [to be part of a common European solution]’.95 The overarching Euroscepticism aside, Treklangen had in fact softened its perception of Europe, and did not return to its previous anti-German, pro-border-change perceptions.

New Ideas of a United Europe • 117

The ideas that followed from the prospect of a united Europe survived, even though united Europe itself did not materialise as imagined at the time. The Danish-minded youth had deemed the hope for South Schleswig’s reunification with Denmark unrealistic because of the prospect of Europe, but they did not return to the same kind of dismissal of Europe despite the fact that it was the united Europe that proved to be unrealistic. In other words, a perceived inevitability influenced the Danish-minority youth so much that it set changes in motion which eventually gained their own momentum, independently from the original idea, which in fact was not inevitable after all. The ways in which both minorities discussed Europe exemplified how the prospects of a certain future influenced identities: the present was shaped by what the future was expected to be. But alongside looking to the future, the minorities also looked back. By the early sixties, however, generational differences emerged regarding the past; minority youths and the older generations did not always agree about the past and what should be learned from it. This concerned both the distant and the more recent past.

Notes  1. There were more layers to this than it is relevant to discuss here. Sven Papcke argues, for example, that European corporation was ‘born more out of anxiety and necessity [than] out of Europe’s free will’. See: Papcke, ‘Who Needs European Identity’, 65.  2. The Council of Europe was established on the initiative of France, Britain and the Benelux countries. For a solid and recent account of its history, see: Bond, Council of Europe. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was founded by West Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries (‘The Six’). See for example: Dinan, Ever Closer Union, 26–30; Urwin, Community of Europe, 76–87. Or, for a more specific study of the ECSC, see: Spiernburg and Poidevin, History of the High Authority.   3. The scholarship on European Integration is vast. For a recent survey, besides the above, see, for example: Dedman, Origins and Development of the European Union.   4. Although the parliament was formed in 1961, in reality there were no direct elections to it before 1979. See: Dinan, Ever Closer Union, 264.  5. These seven countries were Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. See, for example: Urwin, Community of Europe, 98–100.   6. See for example: Dinan, Ever Closer Union, 20–3; Urwin, Community of Europe, 44–6; Blair, European Union since 1945, 16–20.  7. Friis Hansen, ‘Den politiske overvågning’.

118  •  Beyond the Border

  8. See: Gese Friis Hansen, ‘”Das alte up ewig ungedeelt”’.  9. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1956), 21–23. ‘Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll: Was heißt das: Deutsch sein?’. 10. Wurm, Western Europe and Germany, 5. 11. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1956), 21–23. ‘Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll: Was heißt das: Deutsch sein?’. 12. Grenzfriedenshefte, no. 1 (1961), 5–6. ‘Eb., Sechs+Sieben=Eins’. 13. Grenzfriedenshefte, no. 1 (1961), 22–29. ‘Osward Hauser: Volk und Staat als Elemente der europäischen Politik’. 14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. For a history of FUEN in English, see: Kühl and Grænseregionsforskning Institut for, The Federal Union of European Nationalities. 17. DCBS: I 53: ‘Federal Union of European Nationalities’ [hereafter FUEN]: ‘Minutes of the Congress of the FUEN, held in the city hall of Cardiff’ (original quote in English) (5–7 May 1955). 18. Ibid. (both original quotes are in English). 19. DCBS: I 53-108: FUEN: ‘1. Resolution, Kongress der Föderalistischen Union Europäischer Volksgruppen, Aachen’ (23–26 July 1959). 20. DCBS: I 53-108: FUEN: ‘Resolutionsentwurf 12., 10. Kongress der Föderalistischen Union Europäischer Volksgruppen, Zuoz, Schweiz’ (4–6 June 1960). 21. DCBS: I 53-108: FUEN: ‘Entschliessungsentwurf des politischen Arbeitsausschusses, 12. Kongress der Föderalistischen Union Europäischer Volksgruppen, Flensburg’ (30 May–2 June 1960). 22. DCBS: I 53-108: FUEN: ‘Draft resolution nr. 2, 15th Congress of the Federal Union of European Nationalities, Leeuwarden, Nederland’ (10–12 June 1965). 23. DCBS: I 53-108: FUEN: ‘Ansprache der Präsidenten der FUEV, Abgeordneten Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll’, 12. Kongress der Föderalistischen Union Europäischer Volksgruppen (FUEV) Flensburg (30 May–2 June 1962). 24. ADV: DJVN: ‘Satzungsentwurf für einen Deutschen Jugendverband für Nordschleswig’ (2 February 1948). 25. Grenzfriedenshefte, no. 3 (1955), 37. ‘Paul Koopmann: Die deutsche Jugendarbeit in Nordschleswig seit 1945’. 26. Ibid. 27. Deutsche Museen Nordschleswig [hereafter DMN]: Film Collection [hereafter F.C.]: ‘Nachschule Tingleff’ (1961). 28. Der Nordschleswiger (6 June 1961). ‘Günther Weitling: Die Geschichtslose Generation – Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Jugend der dreißiger und vierziger Jahre’. 29. Ibid. 30. Ibid. 31. Flensborg Avis (8 June 1961). ‘Et kig gennem modpartens vindue: Den tysk-nordslesvigske ungdoms dilemma’.

New Ideas of a United Europe • 119

32. Der Nordschleswiger (16 October 1961). ‘Aktive Mitarbeit zur Stärkung der deutschen Volksgruppe’. 33. Der Nordschleswiger (17 October 1961). ‘Jugend auf dem rechten Weg – Rückschau auf die 15. Herbsttagung des Deutschen Jugendverbandes für Nordschleswig’. 34. Ibid. 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Der Nordschleswiger (16 October 1961). ‘Aktive Mitarbeit zur Stärkung der deutschen Volksgruppe’. 39. Branner and Kelstrup, ‘Denmark’s Policy towards Europe’, 9–38. 40. Ibid.; and Laursen and Borring Olesen, ‘A Nordic Alternative to Europe?’. 41. Vulkanen (October 1956), 1–2. ‘Kay Johannsen: Kontaktmøder mellem danske og tyske gymnasieelever’. 42. Ibid. 43. Vulkanen (November 1956). ‘For meget FSS-stof!’. 44. Ibid. 45. Vulkanen (December 1956). ‘Ole Harck: Duborg-skolens FSS’ers Super-fase!’. 46. Vulkanen (January–February 1957). ‘Ole Harck: Først Sydslesviger! Siden Europæer eller verdensborger!’. 47. Ibid. 48. Treklangen (July 1955), 51. ‘Franz Wingender: Europa – Dansk Ungdom i Sydslesvig’. 49. Ibid. 50. Ibid. 51. Vulkanen (May 1957). ‘Heide: Uddrag af et foredrag af G. Wehlitz “Vor tids ungdom”’. 52. Ibid. 53. Laursen and Borring Olesen, ‘A Nordic Alternative to Europe?’, 225. 54. Ibid. 55. Ibid. 56. Front og Bro (December 1955), 186–192. ‘Poul Engberg: Grænselandet og Europatanken’. 57. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. Grænsen (1957), 6–8. ‘Poul Engberg: Europa kalder på os’. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Front og Bro (1959), 187. ‘Johannes Novrup: Mellemfolkelig oplysning’. 64. Grænsen (February 1958), 9–10. ‘Hamskifte’ 65. Ibid. 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 68. Treklangen (August 1958), 79. ‘Angår det os? – fra Grænseforeningens Tønder-afdeling’.

120 • Beyond the Border

69. Treklangen (August 1958), 81. ‘Løveungen: Mange mener at den nationale grænsekamp er til skade for et nyt forenet Europa. Til dem rimer Løveungen’. 70. Flensborg Avis (31 October 1960) ‘Sydslesvigs danske må være med til at forme det ny Europa’. 71. Ibid. 72. Ibid. 73. Ibid. 74. Ibid. 75. Treklangen (March 1961), 174. ‘K: Europa’. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid. 78. Vulkanen (December 1958), 4–6. ‘Kay Johannsen: Ung Vrede – Sydslesvig, Ungdommen, Skolen’. 79. Ibid. 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. 82. Ibid. 83. Ibid. 84. Vulkanen (February 1959), 7. ‘Redaktionen: Ung Vrede (II) – Sydslesvig, Ungdommen, Skolen’. 85. Vulkanen (February 1959), 8. ‘Kay Johannsen: En højtidelig erklæring’. 86. Branner, ‘Options and Goals’, 344. 87. For example: Grænsen (April 1959), 6. ‘Poul Engberg: Danmark of den europæiske virkelighed’; Grænsen (July 1959), 12. ‘B.A.K.: Grænselandet og markedsplanerne’; Grænsen (February 1961), 11. ‘B.A.K.: Den europæiske udfordring’; and Treklangen (December 1961), 133–34. ‘Harald Holm Jacobsen: en ny situation?’. 88. Grænsen (December 1961), 9–10. ’Lorenz Rerup, Dansk-tysk dialog’. 89. Ibid. 90. Ibid. 91. Ibid. 92. Der Nordschleswiger (8 November 1962). ‘Ln.: Deutsche und dänische Minderheiten-Jugend tagt Sonntag in Tingleff’. 93. Ibid. 94. Treklangen (March 1963), 178. ‘K, ’Hvad nu?’. 95. Ibid.

Bibliography Blair, Alasdair. The European Union since 1945. 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman, 2010. Bond, Martyn. The Council of Europe: Structure, History and Issues in European Politics. New York: Routledge, 2011. Branner, Hans. ‘Options and Goals in Danish European Policy Since 1945: Explaining Small State Behavior and Foreign Policy Change’. In Denmark’s Policy towards Europe after 1945: History, Theory and Options, edited by

New Ideas of a United Europe • 121

Hans Branner and Morten Kelstrup, 333–80. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2000. Branner, Hans and Morten Kelstrup. ‘Denmark’s Policy towards Europe in a Historical and Theoretical Perspective’. In Denmark’s Policy towards Europe after 1945: History, Theory and Options, edited by Hans Branner and Morten Kelstrup, 9–38. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2000. Dedman, Martin. The Origins and Development of the European Union 1945–2008: A History of European integration. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2010. Dinan, Desmond. Ever Closer Union: An Introduction to European Integration. 4th ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Friis Hansen, Gese. ‘“Das alte up ewig ungedeelt … hört ein für allemal auf»: der Haderslebener Kreis und der Kampf um die Loyalität’. Schriften der Heimatkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Nordschleswig, (2007): 9–41. Friis Hansen, Gese. ‘Den politiske overvågning i Sønderjylland 1945–1950’. In PET’s overvågning af den yderste højrefløj 1945–1989, edited by Morten Heiberg, 27–81. Copenhagen: Justitsministeriet, 2009. Kühl, Jørgen. The Federal Union of European Nationalities: an outline history 1949– 1999. Border region studies 1. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2000. Laursen, Johnny N. and Thorsten Borring Olesen. ‘A Nordic Alternative to Europe? The Interdepenence of Denmark’s Nordic and European Policies’. In Denmark’s Policy towards Europe after 1945: History, Theory and Options, edited by Hans Branner and Morten Kelstrup, 223–59. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2000. Papcke, Sven. ‘Who Needs European Identity and What Could It Be?’. In The Idea of Europe: Problems of National and Transnational Identity, edited by Brian Nelson, David Roberts and Walter Veit. New York; Oxford: Berg, 1992. Spiernburg, Dirk and Raymond Poidevin. The History of the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community: Supranationality in Operation. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1994. Urwin, Derek W. The Community of Europe: A History of European Integration since 1945. 2nd ed. London: Longman, 1995. Wurm, Clemens A. Western Europe and Germany: The Beginnings of European Integration, 1945–1960. Oxford: Berg, 1995.

O4 Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning Generational Differences on the Past and Politics, c. 1960–65

By the early 1960s, the new generation of young people no longer had any active memory of the many historical events that had contributed to the national contestations in the Danish–German borderlands. In 1960, for example, forty years had passed since the redrawing of the border, meaning that young people could not remember the border not having been there. Even the outbreak of the most recent conflict, the Second World War, was twenty years ago. From the perspective of a young person, these events were all in the past. However, the older generation perceived the past differently: many of them were born before 1920, and remembered both the Second World War and the relationship between Danes and Germans in the years before and immediately after 1945, at its nadir. Although young people did not remember these events, they were still influenced by them. Historians studying memory have highlighted the idea that the present is shaped by the past, and that a generation inherits a certain version of history – or lessons – from it. Gil Eyal, for example, argues the investment of memory with the function of guaranteeing identity generates the sense of an embattled memory, attacked and challenged from the outside by competing versions of the past … On the other hand, the investment of memory with function of overcoming trauma … generates the sense of an unstable memory.1

Attempting to understand how memories are passed on from one generation to the next, Marianne Hirsch has coined the term

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  123

‘postmemories’, which describes ‘the relationship of the second generation to powerful often traumatic experiences that preceded their births but that were nevertheless transmitted to them so deeply as to seem to constitute memories in their own right’.2 According the ideas of Hirsch, the minority youth in Schleswig were connected to histories that included national contestations. This included not only the fundamental disagreement as to whether Schleswig was Danish or German, but also the very notion of a troubled and conflict-ridden past, in particular as a consequence of the Second World War. Overall, the lives of West-German youths in the 1960s were heavily influenced by the Nazi past.3 According to historian Hanna Schissler, ‘the generation born during and after the Second World War experienced lives dramatically different from their parents’.4 She argues that the scepticism of young people was directed towards the Nazi experience and the roles and responsibilities of the older generations.5 Historian Detlef Siegfried asserts that young people often had a good relationship with their parents but a troubled one with wider society. Therefore, according to Siegfried, ‘it is important to distinguish between intergenerational differences within the family and within society at large’.6 Overall, Siegfried concludes, too, that ‘rejecting the Nazi past was an essential part of youth in the 1960s’7 and that ‘young people were advocating the expansion of democratic ways as well as the practice of tolerant behaviour, … sometimes under conditions which led to conflicts with the older generations. Especially in the lower-middle classes and the rural areas’.8 The two minorities perceived and used their pasts in almost opposite ways. In North Schleswig, the German minority looked more to the future, and especially the most recent past; the Second World War was rarely discussed explicitly, albeit it was not ignored completely. Oral history evidence suggests that talking about the past, and the Second World War, was something that mostly took place in the private and adult sphere, from which children and young people were excluded. A German-minority man born 1951 explained, in 2015, how he remembered that the war was only something discussed by his father and his friends, and that these discussions happened late at night, perhaps after a dinner or meeting. He described how he would sometimes sit at the top of the stairs eavesdropping on such conversations.9 A German-minority woman, born 1953 recalled, in 2013, a similar experience: It was a completely closed-off topic … My dad was at the front in Russia and he was very young. He was hit by a grenade and must have

124  •  Beyond the Border

experienced some horrible things … But he never told us anything and my mother said we should not ask about it … it was not a topic, it took place behind closed doors. Only sometimes late at night, one could hear that they talked about something.10

On the consequences of this silence, the same woman explained: I have also experienced being called a Nazi pig, and I remember thinking, what is that? And then I went home and asked, but my parents avoided the subject. I never got an explanation of what that Nazi thing was … it was only when I got older that I demanded answers because I thought there were so many holes. And then my mother was actually quite good at talking about it.11

Despite the unwillingness to discuss the recent past with young people, this chapter will show that some youths of this first generation who did not remember the war were dissatisfied with the collective silence, as well as with Jugendverband’s attempts to de-politicise young people. In South Schleswig, the situation was almost the opposite. The Danish minority took pride in its past, and it understood its own place in it differently than the German minority. Even though many Danishminority youths were in fact first-generation Danes on the individual level, the collective understanding was not shaped by those who had only joined the Danish movement post-war. The understanding of the identity change, the legitimate rediscovery of all South Schleswigers’ true Danish nature, as discussed in Chapter 1, meant that the Danish minority shared its past with Danes in Denmark, regardless of whether one’s ancestors had, in reality, seen themselves as Danes or not. But even though the Danish-minority youth were expected to share this pride and interest in the Danish nation’s past, the ways in which the past was remembered did not always match the realities as experienced by young people.

The ‘History-less Generation’ and Its Attempts to Understand the Past In North Schleswig, the relationship of German-minority youths with the past was complex. The past was anything but celebrated; rather, the minority practised a certain degree of collective dis-remembering of the most recent past. The German minority focused on the future instead. Between the lines, however, the two world wars continued to loom large over North Schleswig German identity. The First World War represented the catalyst of the region’s contested unification with

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning • 125

Denmark; the Second World War reminded the minority of having stood on the ‘wrong’ side of the conflict, only to be first ‘betrayed’ by Nazi Germany and then ‘purged’ by the Danish-majority population.12 Even if the minority had declared that it had been a mistake to support Hitler’s war, and that from 1945 onwards they would be loyal Danish citizens, the feelings of being the victims of non-self-imposed injustices continued. In addition, both wars reminded the minority of the personal sacrifices and deaths of young family members and friends for causes that failed to result in in a better life for the Germanminded group. The troubled past influenced the activities of the German-minority youth. From its 1946 reconstruction onwards, the official Germanminority youth association, Jugendverband, focused solely on activities unrelated to politics, its statues literally preventing any political activities. Sports, in particular handball, fistball and rowing, were the main activities for youths within the framework of the youth association.13 But as mentioned in the previous chapter, Günter Weitling, the young theology student from Haderslev, challenged Jugendverband’s focus, in 1961, with his article in Der Nordschleswiger, ‘The History-less Generation’.14 Weitling stressed that young people born in the 1930s and 1940s were unaware of their history and were therefore insecure in their own national identities as Germans. According to Weitling, this led to a feeling of ‘not belonging anywhere’, and he suggested ‘a first task should be to lead this generation out of its history-less-ness … [because] these technology-obsessed and sports-interested young people wondered about the meaning of life and their history too’.15 Weitling, at this point, was a young man himself. He was a university student, dividing his time between Copenhagen and North Schleswig. Born in Haderslev in 1935, he grew up in an unambiguously Germanminded home. After the Second World War, his father was imprisoned in Faarhus, and like other German-minority children of his generation, Weitling was transferred to a Danish school in 1945. In an oral history interview from 2014, he described his childhood as ‘good … and not too troubled by his belonging to the minority’.16 Reflecting on his school years, he did not recall any major incidents of discrimination connected to his German national identity. He remembered, however, that a Haderslev sports association would not let him play in their teams because he was also a member of a German handball club.17 He mentioned one occasion too when the parents of a Danish-majority playmate denied him access to their home and called him ‘a filthy German’.18

Figure 4.1 Günter Weitling’s article, ‘Die Geschichtslose Generation’, 1961. Courtesy Der Nordschleswiger.

126  •  Beyond the Border

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning • 127

From his daily life in the family home, he also recalled, however, that his older brothers grew tired of their father’s post-war imprisonment stories. Weitling remembered they said to their father ‘that he made it sound like there was somebody there hired to only kick him in the behind’.19 Weitling also mentioned that, upon the landing of British soldiers in Denmark in May 1945, he had asked his mother to knit him a beanie in red, white and blue – the colours of the British Royal Army; which apparently other mothers in the neighbourhood, presumably of the Danish majority, had knitted for their children. According to Weitling, his mother refused to knit him a red, white and blue beanie, but eventually she knitted him one with a similar pattern but in different colours.20 Even if Weitling’s story is an individual account, it presents some of the circumstances, influencing many German-minded children growing up in post-war North Schleswig. Although the relationships between Danes and Germans improved quickly after the Second World War, German-minority children and young people continued to experience a sense that they were different from their Danish-majority peers, and in some cases they were discriminated against.21 At the same time, they were confronted with Danish-majority society through their schooling, where they were largely welcomed by teachers.22 Furthermore, the formation of good relations and friendships between children and youths across nationalities were beginning to be the norm rather than the exception. The episode about the beanie suggests that Weitling recalled his mother’s position on the national struggle between German and Danish as being that she maintained some views but eventually was willing to seek a compromise. As discussed in the previous chapter, in his article Weitling’s argued, overall, that the European ideas should become the framework within which young North Schleswigers could find their new identities. This is a view he presented at a youth conference in Tinglev, in the spring of 1961, too.23 In the autumn of 1961, Der Nordschleswiger published three more articles by Weitling, in which he discussed at great length the identities and challenges of German-minority youths since 1920.24 His article sparked reactions from both the German minority and beyond. In addition, the Danish-minority daily, Flensborg Avis, reported of ‘the German–North Schleswig youth dilemma’,25 and that ‘the German youth of North Schleswig [was] seek[ing] new ways’.26 Weitling’s second point – his call for deeper reflections about the past – was not received well by the German-minority establishment. Der Nordschleswiger dismissed the notion that young people were the instigators of a bewältigung [coping or understanding] of the past.

128  •  Beyond the Border

Rather on the contrary, the paper wrote that ‘the call for this did not come from youth itself but from the older representatives involved in youth work’. The paper argued that ‘young people stated clearly that they [were] not concerned today with coping with the past but with understanding the future’. The paper continued: ‘they [young people] [were] seeking clear awareness of German history, to which National Socialism – with its positive and negative aspects – now happens to belong’.27 The almost casual mentioning of National Socialism as something that ‘now happens’ to belong to German history with its ‘positive and negative aspects’ may appear to be a bizarre perspective in a minority that officially denounced Nazism and declared loyalty to the Danish state fifteen years earlier, but it was actually not as tone deaf as it seems. The 1960s indeed became the decade during which West Germany began to face the consequences of the Second World War, in particular the horrifying crimes against humanity during the Holocaust, at home catalysed by the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, 1963–65, and abroad by the Eichmann trial in Israel in 1961.28 But the dominating legacy of the Second World War in 1950s West Germany was still largely one of German victimhood and ordinary Germans – the army included – only having done what was expected of them.29 In that respect, the Germans in North Schleswig were no different. Nothing indicates, however, that Der Nordschleswiger’s conclusion represented the general attitude of most German-minority youths – neither that young people were disinterested in the past nor that, if they were interested, they sought to understand both the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ aspects of National Socialism. First, oral history evidence suggests that the National Socialist experience was rarely discussed openly, and that young people in general were repulsed by their parents’ and grandparents’ affiliation with the ideology.30 Second, it has been impossible to find any curriculum plans for teaching history in the German schools that includes the National Socialist experience in North Schleswig. Whereas the establishment dismissed Weitling’s call for a bewältigung of the past, two young German-minority men reached out to him. After publishing his articles in Der Nordschleswiger, he was contacted by two brothers in their late teens and early twenties from Aabenraa, Walter and Siegfried Christiansen.31 Weitling was pleased. In his response to their letters, he wrote that ‘yours are not the first reactions to have reached me, but they are the first ones from young people and therefore the most significant ones’.32 Explaining in more detail to the brothers, Weitling wrote that ‘other reactions have reached

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning • 129

me from the older generation, from the Danish side, from Germans in Copenhagen and from people south of the border, in particular encouraging me to continue on this path’.33 Weitling explained that reactions from the minority’s older generations were mixed. The correspondence between the two brothers in Aabenraa and Günter Weitling offers a different perspective on young people’s interest in the minority’s past than the one communicated in Der Nordschleswiger. In September 1961, Siegfried Christiansen wrote to Weitling that ‘your article gave me the final push to put into practice an idea that I have had since last autumn, to create a discussion forum for young German North Schleswigers here in Aabenraa’.34 Siegfried Christiansen agreed with Weitling – and thus not with Der Nordschleswiger – on the absence of the minority’s understanding of the past. He wrote: During the entire first year of history lessons in the German secondary school, the history of the Schleswig borderland has not even once been touched upon. It is really a sad thing, given the importance of the German secondary school in this regard.35

Walter and Siegfried Christiansen followed through with their plans to form a youth group with the purpose to discuss German-minority history and questions of identity. From 1961 to 1963, the two brothers organised and operated the forum. Walter Christiansen (born 1938) was employed as a typographer and Siegfried Christiansen (born 1943) attended the new German secondary school in Aabenraa. The establishment of the forum, to begin with named Junger Abeitskreis Apenrade and later Kreis Junger Schleswiger (KJS) challenged Jugendverband. Siegfried Christiansen argued that a number of youths avoided the Jugendverband because its activities were only initiated ‘from above’. ‘Overall,’ Siegfried Christiansen argued, ‘I believe that since the capitulation [1945] the Jugendverband has neglected its duties’.36 The challenge posed by Walter and Siegfried Christiansen came from well within the minority’s own ranks. Similar to Weitling, the two brothers came from an unambiguously Germanminded and even German-speaking home. Moreover, Siegfried Christiansen was one of the few students at the newly founded secondary school, the re-establishment of which, in the public minority discourse, constituted one of the greatest post-war achievements. Despite Siegfried Christiansen’s criticism of the Jugendverband, written of course in confidence to Weitling, the two brothers did not intend for their group to exist in isolation from the rest of the minority’s activities. Alongside the two brothers, a young woman,

130  •  Beyond the Border

Ursula Tästensen, became a part of the group while she was also engaged with Jugendverband’s activities. The group managed to invite speakers placed on the very top of the minority’s hierarchy to give talks on topics that concerned North Schleswig and the border region history as well as German identity in general. During its two active years, key figures such as headmaster Paul Koopmann, head of the BDN, Harro Marquardsen, and the minority’s representative in the Danish parliament, Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll attended the group’s regular meetings. KJS was never a forum that pulled together young people in large numbers. Whereas the meetings were regular and open to all interested, they were attended by between ten to fifteen youths on average. KJS’s significance was that it represented a new dimension to young people’s way of being together within a minority framework. Rather than being brought together under the usual adult-controlled framework of sport, scouting or amateur theatre, young people in KJS were brought together by their interest in political and philosophical questions, and by their efforts to understand themselves better both in relation to the minority’s past and their Danish neighbour. In total, Kreis Junger Schleswiger organised twenty-five debate evenings, all of which followed the same structure: the group invited a guest to speak on a topic chosen by the group, the topics all relating to history and identity or questions concerning art and culture. The chosen topics reflected that the young people behind KJS were curious and self-confident. The nature of the activities also showed that it was possible within the German minority for young people themselves to organise a forum that not only discussed issues of North Schleswig German identity but also managed to get the attention of the more established parts of the minority. The topics reflected that some of the German-minority youth were interested in activities that extended beyond the minority’s focus on sport. In December 1961, for example, Mr Christiansen, a priest working with young people, discussed with the group the idea of freedom, arguing that ‘no human [was] completely free as they always [remained] connected to their family and homeland’.37 The following month, the group invited Hans Peter Johanssen, head of the German border association, Grenzfriedensbund, to discuss cultural politics.38 The fact that the group was able to attract a man like Johanssen shows that the establishment took the group seriously and that the older generation did not, in practice, shy away from discussing such themes with young people.

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  131

Some of the group’s discussions also met Weitling’s call for the minority to seek a position as mediator between Danes and Germans. In November 1962, the group invited a vice-principal, Christian Stenz, from the Danish secondary school in Aabenraa, to discuss the language situation in the border region.39 Accompanying Stenz, young people from an association called Conservative Students participated in the meeting as well. The minutes describe how both speaker and guests were happy to be invited and that they expressed their overall satisfaction with the ways in which relations had improved between Germans and Danes in North Schleswig. Stenz argued in his lecture that language in the border region should not be seen as an indicator of national identity, and that he saw no reason to be concerned about potential Germanisation of North Schleswig due to the advancement of West German television programmes.40 The minutes describe the evening as ‘fun’ and one that ended with ‘a cheerful conversation about the low Danish dialect and its idioms’.41 KJS arranged other discussions of a more serious nature, which engaged with the past and included the Danish majority too. In January 1963, the group invited a previous member of the Danish resistance movement to discuss with them the nature and consequences of the Danish resistance to the German occupation because – as the minutes state – ‘the young generation [had] not experienced this era themselves and therefore they [had] a hard time understanding it’.42 According to the speaker, ‘the German occupation created a profound hatred between Danes and Germans but he hoped that time would heal these wounds’.43 In April 1963, the group attempted to discuss the past from the German-minority perspective, too, when they invited one of the most senior members of the BDN, Jef Blume. Blume believed that the situation was difficult for contemporaneous youths to understand, but that ‘the minority could not have reacted any differently to the occupation’.44 Moreover, Blume stated that the majority of Danes tolerated and cooperated with the Germans. He was also quoted having said that there were loses on both sides, and that ‘one side was no better than the other’.45 Nonetheless, Blume also hoped for improved future relations between Danes and Germans in the border region. The fact that KJS invited a previous member of the Danish resistance movement as well as Jef Blume exemplified the group’s genuine interest in the minority’s past. Blume, for one, was not an uncontroversial figure: he had been one of the key individuals behind the wartime, Nazified Jugendverband, and a frequent contributor

132  •  Beyond the Border

to the magazine for youths at the time, Junge Front.46 Blume’s view that ‘one was no better than the other’ would have been a completely opposite position from that of the former Danish resistance fighter. The fact that the group noted down in the minutes of the meetings that both guests hoped for good relations between Danes and Germans in North Schleswig suggests that the group itself considered this an important conclusion of this session. Despite the attempts to improve relations between Germans and Danes, the group’s own relationship with Jugendverband was more complicated. Two issues compromised the relationship. First, the fact that KJS aimed to establish closer ties to the Danish-majority population. In doing so, KJS stressed the importance of remaining independent from Jugendverband in order not to involuntarily make Danish peers a part of an official German-minority institution.47 Second, the sources suggest that members of Jugendverband grew annoyed with the selfconfident manner that KJS created a space for themselves as a forum for German-minority youths. It would be an overstatement to claim that KJS was a rebellion against Jugendverband; rather, both associations felt that their individual aims were difficult to combine. These differences notwithstanding, Kreis Junger Schleswiger twice considered a closer relationship with Jugendverband. According to the minutes, the group first discussed the question in the autumn of 1962. The precise arguments for a closer relationship are somewhat unclear in the archival evidence, although other documents state that the group were keen to secure more funding in order to fulfil its aspirations of expanding the activities to other towns.48 The arguments against a closer relationship, however, were articulated explicitly. The group actually implied that they focused more on being a forum for youths than a forum for members of the German minority. The minutes read: The Kreis Junger Schleswiger does not have – like other groups and clubs connected to Jugendverband – the character of an association (That is, we do not have statutes, member’s fees, no general assembly, etc.). Our prospects from outside the German minority would – through the linkage of Kreis Junger Schleswiger to the Jugendverband – collectively become members of the latter. This cannot be advised, when we seek to be a free, independent forum that – regarding the intake of new members – does not put up national or political boundaries.49

In 1963, KJS considered again becoming part of Jugendverband when Siegfried Christiansen graduated from the secondary school and was drafted for compulsory military service in the Danish army. A memorandum from 1966 by Walter Christiansen states that Jugendverband did not reply to KJS’s request for assistance with

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  133

continuing the meetings.50 The same memorandum also states that members of Jugendverband were both ‘sceptical and rejecting’ of the group.51 The position of Jugendverband towards KJS can only be determined through KJS’s archive as, unfortunately, no documents in Jugendverband’s own archive concern KJS. Both the memorandum by Walter Christiansen, and an oral history interview with Siegfried Christiansen in 2014, stated that Jugendverband was indisputably critical of KJS and reluctant to change.52 The fact that high-profiled individuals such as Paul Koopmann visited the group to lecture, however, suggests that Jugendverband also attempted to accommodate the group. Rather than assessing the position of Jugendverband towards KJS as critical and rejecting only, its position could be assessed as mostly critical and rejecting, but in a few situations compliant. That said, Jugendverband – including Koopmann – retained a critical stance towards the young generation. When Koopmann visited the group, the title of his lecture was ‘What is going on with the youth?’. At best, the topic suggested that a gap between the older and younger generations was starting to emerge. Koopmann’s views of contemporaneous youths were that young people ‘were more assertive and held stronger views than previously’ but that ‘young people [were] challenged due to the lack of time for reflection’.53 Unfortunately, the minutes from that evening contain no mention of whether the group agreed with Koopmann. Correspondence between the group and Jugendverband from early 1963 reveals, however, that relations between the two had soured. According to the minutes of a meeting in January 1963, Ursula Tästensen informed Walter and Siegfried Christiansen that in Jugendverband there were ‘several critics of KJS’ and the three concluded that the critique was based on misunderstandings, which they decided to address.54 KJS approached Jugendverband, whose reply, in turn, was unequivocally stern. First, Jugendverband argued that ‘Miss Tästensen was in no way asked by the executive board [of Jugendverband] to reprimand Kreis Junger Schleswiger’.55 Clearly, Jugendverband felt that Ursula Tästensen had behaved disloyally vis-à-vis her roles in both KJS and Jugendverband. Second, Jugendverband revealed what seems to have been the core of the conflict: that Siegfried Christiansen ‘in no way was mandated to speak on behalf of North Schleswig German youth in the West German public sphere’.56 The problem seems to have been that Siegfried Christiansen at some point was taken as an official representative of North Schleswig German youth in some West German context. Evidently Jugendverband saw this

134  •  Beyond the Border

as their domain only. Jugendverband, in other words, could not accept that young people – even if they identified themselves unmistakably as being North Schleswig Germans – could represent minority youth in general. In combination with Jugendverband’s strong reaction against Ursula Tästensen’s making this known to the group, a picture emerges of a youth organisation that fiercely held onto its position as the representative of the German-minority youth. The case of Kreis Junger Schleswiger sheds light on different aspects of the lives and identities of the German-minority youth in the first half of the 1960s. The young people who participated in KJS’s activities took an interest in discussing the past and questions of identity, even if the group always remained a minority within the minority. The group’s limited scope, however, must be seen as just as much a result of Jugendverband’s unwillingness to assist KJS in expanding its activities, as it was due to a potential lack of young people’s interest. On the other hand, the participation of senior members of the minority, such as Paul Koopmann, Jef Blume and Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll, showed that the establishment must at some level have supported the interests of the KJS too. Overall, it seems that the older generation appreciated some initiatives of the younger generation, if only the initiative remained within the boundaries of what was deemed appropriate. The fact that the group discontinued its activities after Siegfried Christiansen left, also shows that activities depended on individuals. But the case of KJS was not just an isolated experience. The group demanded being included in decision-making processes, a position which became ever more characteristic of young people’s relationship vis-à-vis the establishment in the following years. In this, Kreis Junger Schleswiger was in hindsight the first manifestation of how young people’s behaviour changed. Furthermore, as will be shown in the following chapter, Jugendverband actually copied KJS’s activities not long after the group closed down. A large-scale effort to offer young people a deeper understanding of, in particular, the recent past, however, did not take place.

The Danish-Minority Youth in the Early 1960s: The Commemorated Past and Its Relevance to the Present Whereas young people of the German minority had to seek and organise the information and discussions about the past themselves, the situation south of the border was different. During the first half of the 1960s, the Danish minority focused intensely on keeping the

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  135

past alive and vivid through a long string of commemorations. 1960 marked forty years after the redrawing of the border as well as twenty years since the outbreak of the Second World War. 1964 marked the centenary of 1864; followed by 1965, which marked twenty-five years since the outbreak of the war and twenty years since the end of it. The commemorations included debates on the position of the Danish minority, the presence of the border, and the relationship with Germany and Germans. Overall, the Danish minority perceived itself as part of the smaller, democratic and peace-seeking Danish nation in opposition to the much larger German aggressor. In essence, the Danes conceptualised themselves as being a nation which stood for the ‘good’. This conceptualisation was a source of pride for the Danish minority. It inspired a positive relationship with the past, which was often used as an argument for a Danish moral superiority in contemporary matters; meanwhile, less emphasis was placed on the future. In 1959, for example, Grænsen, the Danish magazine on border issues, stressed that the past should be remembered and celebrated, referring specifically to the remembrance of the 300 years since the Swedish attack on Copenhagen in 1659 and the forthcoming fortieth year since 1920. Grænsen argued: Both historic events speak about Danish persistence and courage, and the initiative to form a better relationship with the eastern neighbour and now the southern neighbour – a good example to the rest of the world … But even in schools they consider cutting back on history in favour of the brave new world in order to accommodate children’s disinterest in the past and longing towards the future. The trend is dangerous because it creates rootlessness.57

At the same time, however, a different view had emerged too. In 1959, Grænsen also reported that a meeting between Danish and German historians had taken place in South Schleswig. Grænsen wrote that ‘in a conversation between history teachers from the two countries, it was accentuated that the youth of the future should not be burdened with the shadows of the past’.58 The two different positions indicate that different opinions existed and they highlight that debates about the past took place within a larger context of changes in the relationship between Danes and Germans. Despite the expectation on the behalf of young people to engage with – and be proud of – the past, youths and the establishment did not always agree on what lessons to draw from history. Young people began to question the lessons presented in connection with the commemorations of the Danish past. The dogmas of the border question

136  •  Beyond the Border

and the German as the enemy fitted poorly with the opinions of a growing number of youths, as the discussions that started with NATO and Europe continued. Consequently, the voices of young people as well as the divisions between the generations grew stronger. It was not that youth and establishment were divided into two opposing camps; neither the views of the establishment nor those of young people were static or completely one-sided. But whereas the older generations were set in their position on Germany and the Germans, young people increasingly challenged this. Furthermore, young people wanted to discuss political questions too, but the establishment left little room to do so in a way that suited them. Danes in Denmark perceived 1920 and the Second World War differently than the Danish minority in South Schleswig. In Denmark, 1945 was the year of liberation, whereas, in South Schleswig, it was the year of a missed opportunity from which disappointment followed over the fact that the border was not moved. In the jubilee year of 1960, Grænsen quoted Frantz Thygesen, one of the important figures of the Danish movement just after 1945, evaluating the minority’s situation, in an article titled ‘South Schleswig – 15 years later’. According to Thygesen, 1945 was a disappointment, although there were reasons to be satisfied as well – in particular with young people. He was quoted as saying: We should be happy with the solid developments. Today, Danish-ness in South Schleswig is stronger than anyone dared hope for in 1939. The Germans have to acknowledge a large Danish-minded population and an energetic youth in the region is promising for the future.59

The same article also expressed satisfaction with the fact that the German minority in North Schleswig was smaller in 1960 than before the war;60 a position that showed that at least some Danes maintained the ideal of the constant state of competition between Danes and Germans in the border region. The organisations and publications for young people expressed reflections on the past that communicated an acceptance of the ways times had changed since the Second World War. In May 1960, Treklangen also featured a major piece that discussed the liberation fifteen years on. The author of the article argued that it was time to alter the interpretation of 1945 as a disappointment: It is understandable that the disappointment over the freedom we did not get overshadowed the joy over the freedom that we did get. But perhaps now is the time that Danish South Schleswigers can also start talking about ‘the liberation in 1945’ … One needs to find joy in celebrating 4 and 5 May together with Danes from north of the border.61

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  137

By 1960, young people and representatives of the establishment contested, however, the actual meaning of the past for the present and future. In another article from 1960, discussing the national situation in Schleswig forty years after 1920, Grænsen celebrated that the national contestation continued and that the area of contestation now was South Schleswig and no longer North Schleswig.62 Regarding the future, it maintained that: Even if the demand for a border revision has almost disappeared from the Schleswig terminology … the purpose is now to ‘overcome’ the border and further ‘the spiritual reunification’ with the mother people … 1960 is not just a dead year of commemorations, much more it is a living year of the present and the future, it confirms once again the ability of the South Jutland Question to renew itself and stay alive in new times, while young hands stand ready to carry on the torch [sic.] of the old ones that fell.63

An interview in Treklangen, with six students from Duborg-Skolen in Flensburg, suggests, however, that some youths did not consider themselves ready to carry on the old national contestation. One young man, Christian, is quoted as saying: I am not Danish in opposition to being German. It does not work because nationalism is to blame for so many wars … If one understands nationality as standing with a flag in one hand and a sword in the other, well, then we are not nationalist.64

Moreover, the interview brought another opinion to the fore that actually resembles the ideas of Günter Weitling in North Schleswig. A young man, Rolf, said: ‘We create a soft transition between Danish and German … This is necessary in order to create the right understanding between Denmark and Germany’.65 Although these students were from Duborg-Skolen, such statements were not found at this point in time in the school’s own publication, Vulkanen. An explanation could be connected to the censoring of Kay Johannsen’s critical article in 1957,66 but it remains speculation. Nevertheless, the gap was substantial between the two understandings of the past represented by the two positions above. One position wished to continue the national struggle for Schleswig, whereas the other clearly did not, blaming nationalism for wars and not seeing Danes in opposition to Germans. But whereas both statements were communicated in the Danish-minority’s publications, it would be misleading to argue that the first position represented all of the establishment and the latter all of youth. Rather, the two positions shaped the peripheries of opinions, in between which, different

138  •  Beyond the Border

variations existed. Other youths, for example, reacted against opinions similar to the ones presented by the six Duborg students. In 1961, for example, a young sales clerk, Bernd Andresen wrote in reaction to similar views that to him ‘it was like a kick in the face … “Both Danish and German” was the statement of one of these youths. One can only be one thing and [one must] show [their] face. It’s either or. How can the Germans respect us otherwise?’67 By the autumn of 1963, the centenary of 1864 was fast approaching, and historical descriptions of the nineteenth-century conflict started to emerge in Treklangen. In October 1963, for example, the youth magazine featured a long and detailed description of the events, heavily Danishbiased and ridden with superlatives.68 Another long account, by the same author and written in the same pro-Danish style, followed in April 1964.69 With such articles Treklangen clearly wished to communicate to the younger generation the importance of the centenary and the message that the border struggle continued: a point which another article stated quite explicitly in April 1964. With a sentiment of regret, Ebbe Vestergaard argued that ‘nationalism is banned … [because] we live in a NATO and Europe age’.70 He continued: We live in a pop age where nobody wants to contribute any longer … if you do not contribute it is disgraceful to the soldier who gave his life to the Danish [cause] … The Danish efforts in South Schleswig in 1964 can use this lesson. The tasks are simple. Get on with it: speak Danish and pay your association fees. If you think that Danish-ness can be founded on money from Denmark you are mistaken. Only by contributing can you can achieve what is good.71

Vestergaard’s article expresses a hint of frustration with young people and their lack of interest in the centenary and the national efforts. Meanwhile, one of the largest commemorative events of the centenary year aimed at appealing particularly to young people. The gathering, Skamlingsbankestævnet, took place in North Schleswig and was not exclusive to the Danish minority. Nevertheless, it is discussed here because the well-documented archive on the organisation of the rally illustrates the positions of the organisers, in 1964, on how they believed young people should be aware of the past. The archival material is held by the Danish national archive, and it includes programmes, letters, minutes and newspaper clips. In a draft press release, Arne G. Larsen wrote about the ambitions and nature of the rally, highlighting the participation of youth: I am happy to encourage in particular young people to participate in large numbers. Participating will give an impression of what

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  139

happened in Denmark in 1864 but also of what has happened since. The programme is put together so that it becomes a real people’s rally in the best sense of the word, and I hope that many youth associations with take the opportunity to participate in a rally with such an outstanding programme.72

Whether young people were in fact as excited about the rally as Larsen, is questionable. Taking place on 12 July 1964, from 2 to 10 pm, the rally’s programme consisted of gymnastic and folk-dancing performances as well as a solo performance by the opera singer, Franz Anderson.73 In addition to this, the Danish prime minister was to give a speech and six national hymns were to be sung together by all participants.74 Undoubtedly, many youths still appreciated folk dancing and gymnastics, although some young people had already begun to take an interest in new kinds of music and leisure activities.75 If the objective was to entice young people, it seemed more like an event of 1954 than 1964. In their writings, the organisers placed great emphasis on the national effort, which the minority youth in South Schleswig had already started to challenge years before. In another press release, for example, G. Peters-Lehm wrote that Danish unity following from the defeat in 1864 should be celebrated.76 He wrote that, ‘this [was] worth celebrating and so it [would be]. Never before have so many youths been calling us all’.77 Furthermore, the organisers sent out another letter to the editors of Danish newspapers, in which they wrote that the rally should resemble other rallies in the past that brought young people together.78 The organisers copied a quotation from 1934 by Hans Peter Hanssen, one of the most influential Danish-minded North Schleswig politicians, active in the Danish movement before and after the change of the border in 1920, and largely credited by historians for securing the 1920 plebiscite.79 The quotation reads: You, young people! As you enter the battlefield, place yourselves under the banners of P. Hiort Lorenzen, on which it is written: For the reign of the people, for the right to freely speak, think and believe, for the Danish-ness of South Jutland, for people and country. Happy is the youth, whose duties are great. May luck and good fortune be with you in the battle.80

The press release continues: By turning up in great numbers, the Danish youth can confirm that it has understood, and is ready to fulfil its calling, under the new and changed circumstances for our people and country, where it is not so much the battle that counts, but to be aware of the tasks of our time, and the will to do what youth can do best.81

140  •  Beyond the Border

Young people should be forgiven if they found the statements confusing and conflicting. It seems that the organisers attempted to apply the traditional nationalist analogies with a contemporary reality where national conflicts were less relevant. By referring to ‘new and changed circumstances’, the improved relationship due to general European integration and Denmark and West Germany being allies in NATO, the organisers actually recognised that times had changed. At the same time, they maintained a rhetoric of conflict, using metaphors such as ‘banner’, ‘battlefield’ and ‘calling’. Admittedly, Hiort Lorenzen was not a soldier but an eighteenth-century Danish-minded politician from Schleswig, famous in history for having maintained his right to speak Danish in the Schleswig-Holstein assembly in Kiel.82 By referring to him rather than, for example, a soldier or general, the organisers communicated that the duty was to manifest one’s Danish-ness rather than actually fighting Germans. Still, the rhetoric contradicted the message. Overall, the organisers of the rally embarked on a difficult balancing act. They did not abandon the traditional references to the national struggle and competition between Danes and Germans in the border region. Moreover, they continued to use metaphors of battle and war. At the same time, however, they acknowledged the changed conditions in the border region. Although the relationship between Danes and Germans had improved, conservative Danishminded North Schleswigers did not necessarily see that as positive. From their perspective, the objective was never to improve relations between Danes and Germans; rather, it was to continue the struggle and emerge victorious. Back in South Schleswig, the same difficult balancing act could be deciphered in chairman of SdU Wilhelm Klüver’s account at the youth association’s annual gathering in 1964. Klüver mentioned in his speech that the year was characterised both by the remembrance of the war in 1864 and the ‘friendly climate in the border region’.83 He did not challenge the Danish-minority’s emphasis on celebrating the past, but he hinted that a gap existed between the lessons that young people and the establishment wished to draw from history. He said: With the greatest respect and humility for historical traditions and with the danger of undervaluing the importance of a good relationship in the border region, I will allow myself to state the following. Making our historical traditions relevant in a fruitful Danish, everyday life, means more to us than remembering the, in all truth, very important historical events without, at the same time, bringing something forward, which

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  141

young people understand and which they can use as a basis for being Danish in South Jutland.84

With this statement, Klüver cautiously hinted that the minority’s remembrance of the past might not always be done in a form which appealed to young people. His multiple reassurances of the fact that remembering and celebrating the past was important indicated that stating the opposite would have been controversial. If Klüver suspected that questioning the commemorations of 1864 would be controversial, he was right. Detlef Lorenzen was one young man who dared to doubt the relevance of the way 1864 had been commemorated. In December 1964, Lorenzen asked in a letter to the editor of Flensborg Avis if ‘the editor really [thought] that, besides the international and local news, the youth [was] interested in the content of the paper? Perhaps in the “thrilling” and eternal repetition of 1864-related topics?’85 Such irony was not appreciated in the readership of Flensborg Avis. The vice-chairman of the Danish national organisation, ‘Slesvig-Liga’, Leo Dane’s reaction appeared in the paper some days later: Could Mr Lorenzen not find a more suitable way to serve the Danishness? – If not, he should keep his mouth shut! … Flensborg Avis is the eternal flame of the hope for reunification which must NEVER [sic.] be extinguished.86

Another reaction came from a community college in Denmark, arguing that ‘there [was] something wrong with Lorenzen, not Flensborg Avis’.87 Others, however, supported Lorenzen – or rather reacted against the fact that the young man’s opinion was opposed so fiercely. Knud Skov Farland from Copenhagen, for example, criticised Leo Dane’s reaction and called it a ‘super nationalistic’ position. Skov Farland encouraged Detlev Lorenzen to defend his view even if the young man ran the risk of being bullied ‘as it had been the case with other young people, who previously had spoken their minds’.88 Detlev Lorenzen did so a few days later, when he claimed that it did not damage the Danish position in South Schleswig to argue internal matters in public; he claimed that he had received lots of recognition for his position from various sides in South Schleswig.89 Nevertheless, conservative references to the past, and in particular references that highlighted historical differences between Danes and Germans, were still communicated in Treklangen in the mid 1960s. While some young people argued they could combine Danish and German culture, others in the older generation maintained, using the

142  •  Beyond the Border

past as an argument, that Germans and Danes were fundamentally different. In an article reflecting on the lessons of 1864, for example, Georg Lesch argued that the Danish and German nationalities existed in opposition to one another and that ‘in wartime, land [was] won and in peacetime, people [were] won’.90 He elaborated that ‘in all of those 100 years the battle has taken place in each individual and not on the battlefield’.91 Furthermore, the author of an explicitly anti-German article – in the summer of 1964 – argued that Nazism was latent in Germans: One must understand that Nazism – one can also say any kind of dictatorship – can come to power in Germany, because the German still favours a strong leader and a strong state. He is unable to take any initiative, for that he is way to dependant, because they demand of a child that it should respect its elders unconditionally … The youth is unable to determine whether an idea is good or bad. That is why we must fear that what happened under Hitler can happen again.92

Clearly, the conflicts of the past, such as 1864 and experiences of the Second World War, still influenced the Danish minority, and thus the past challenged the developing friendly relations between Danes and Germans caused by external political developments. However, a generational divide was starting to emerge; although the challenge was, that in political questions young people could not establish their own positions without being dominated by the older generations who held on to troubled history. The dominance of the older generation was clear when the Danish minority organised a debate night for youths in January 1965. Flensborg Avis reported that the topic for discussion was whether, in the future, the border should be moved or removed. The actual discussions, however, were mostly about events in the past. Flensborg Avis wrote that ‘only very few of the present young people spoke out … the discussions were mainly between the older [participants] and it strayed off topic’.93 Another report from the meeting, in Flensborg Avis the following day, mentioned that ‘there was a little too much talk about the German minority’s behaviour during the war, about Germany’s blame of the war, etc.’.94 The newspaper concluded: For the 20-year-olds, this discussion must have been dissatisfying, as the experiences before and during the war are history to them, and they do not have any particular relation with them. They are not troubled by these experiences. Unfortunately, young people held back during this debate night … Let us first get the troubles of the past out of the way and then embark on talking about the future.95

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  143

The position of Flensborg Avis was interesting because it encouraged active participation of young people in political debates. At the same time, the paper asserted that the relationship between Danes and Germans had entered a new stage and that the time was ripe to abandon the hostilities between Danes and Germans, which were based on the past. In the second half of the 1960s, young people engaged more with political discussions and, unlike what happened at the meeting in 1965, they became ever more vocal in their opposition to the older generation’s perpetuation of the border struggle. But the problem was also that the older generations controlled the spheres where political topics were debated. Alongside border political debates, minority youths in both North and South Schleswig had already begun to take different and new interests. These interests were unrelated to border issues and minority politics; but their influences were no less significant.

Notes   1. Eyal, ‘Identity and Trauma’, 7.  2. Hirsch, ‘The Generation of Postmemory’.   3. See for example: Rinner, German Student Movement; Rinner, ‘Topographies of Memory; Giesen, ‘Trauma of the Perpetrators’; Gassert and Steinweis, Coping with the Nazi Past; Bohn, Cornelissen Lammers, Vergangenheitspolitik und Erinnerungskulturen, 8; and Betts, ‘Germany, International Justice and the Twentieth Century’. Or for an analysis specifically of the relationship of West German youth with the Nazi past, see: Siegfried, ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’, 60.   4. Schissler, ‘Rebels in Search of a Cause’, 459.  5. Ibid., 461.   6. Siegfried, ‘”Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?”’, 728.  7. Ibid., 742.   8. Ibid., 744.  9. OHI: TWS: (24 June 2015): German-minority male born 1951. 10. OHI: TWS (8 August 2013): German-minority female born 1953. 11. Ibid. 12. See: Festersen, ‘Dänemark und die deutsche Volksgruppe’; or Lubowitz, ‘Det tyske mindretal i Danmark 1945–1955’. 13. Kardel, Deutsche Jugendarbeit in Nordschleswig, 32. 14. Der Nordschleswiger (6 June 1961). ‘Günter Weitling, Die Geschichtslose Generation – Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Jugend der dreißiger und vierziger Jahre’. 15. Ibid. 16. OHI: TWS (3 February 2014): German-minority male born 1935. 17. Ibid.

144  •  Beyond the Border

18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Many of the interviewees refer to similar stories in Henningsen and Lubowitz, eds., Stemmer fra mindretallene. 22. See Chapter 1. 23. See Chapter 3. 24. Der Nordschleswiger (19 October 1961). ‘Günter Weitling: Im Schmelztiegel der Zeit: Die Resignation überwinnen!’; Der Nordschleswiger (20 October 1961). ‘Günter Weitling: Im Schmelztiegel der Zeit: Die Resignation überwinnen! II’; Der Nordschleswiger (21 October 1961). ‘Günter Weitling: Im Schmelztiegel der Zeit: Die Resignation überwinnen! III’. 25. Flensborg Avis (8 October 1961). ‘KEL: Den [sic] tysk-nordslesvigske ungdomsdilemma’. 26. Flensborg Avis (19 October 1961). ‘Den tyske ungdom i Nordslesvig søger ny veje’. 27. Der Nordschleswiger (17 October 1961). ‘Jugend auf dem rechten Weg. Rückschau auf die 15. Herbsttagung des Deutschen Jugendverbandes für Nordschleswig’. 28. See in particular: Cesarani, After Eichmann; and Pendas, Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. 29. Peitsch, ‘Towards a History of “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”’. 30. OHI: TWS (8 August 2013): German-minority female born 1953; and OHI: TWS (18 June 2014): German-minority male born 1943. 31. Siegfried Christiansen Private Archive [hereafter SC]: Nordschleswigsche Beiträge I [hereafter NB I]: ‘Letter from Siegfried Christiansen to Günter Weitling’ (1 September 1961). 32. SC: NB I: ‘Letter from Günter Weitling to Walter and Siegfried Christiansen’ (6 September 1961). 33. Ibid. 34. SC: NB I: ‘Letter from Siegfried Christiansen to Günter Weitling’ (1 September 1961). 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid. 37. ADV: Kreis Junger Schleswiger [hereafter KJS]: ‘Resumé’ (12 December 1961). 38. ADV: KJS: ‘Resumé’ (16 January 1962). 39. ADV: KJS: ‘Resumé’ (6 November 1962). 40. Ibid. 41. Ibid. 42. ADV: KJS: ‘Resumé’ (8 January 1963). 43. Ibid. 44. ADV: KJS: ‘Resumé’ (30 April 1963). 45. Ibid. 46. See: Hansen, ’”Så har vi dem igen”’. 47. ADV: KJS: ‘Anschluss Treffen’ (26 September 1962 and 4 October 1962). 48. ADV: KJS: ‘Ausschuss Treffen’ (19 June 1962).

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  145

49. ADV: KJS: ‘Ausschuss Treffen’ (4 October 1962). 50. ADV: KJS: ‘Walter Chistiansen: Nachschrift zur Tätigkeit des Kreises Junger Schleswiger’ (May–June 1966). 51. Ibid. 52. Ibid.; and OHI: TWS (18 June 2014): German-minority male born 1943. 53. ADV: KJS: ‘Resumé’ (23 May 1962). 54. ADV: KJS: ‘Ausschuss Treffen’ (24 January 1963). 55. ADV: KJS: ‘Letter from Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig to Kreis Junger Schleswiger’ (11 February1962). 56. Ibid. 57. Grænsen (March 1959), 9. ‘En mindedato’. 58. Grænsen (July 1959), 8. ‘Ungdommen og fortidens skygger’. 59. Grænsen (July 1960), 4. ‘Sydslesvig – 15 år efter’. 60. Ibid. 61. Treklangen (May 1960), 18. ‘K., Befrielsen’. 62. Grænsen (July 1960), 3. ‘I 40-året for Slesvigs deling’. 63. Ibid. 64. Grænsen (December 1960), 123–27. ‘Erik Mortensen: Der er ikke noget der støder – vi skummer fløden. 6 Duborg-elevers samtale med bladet ”Vort omstridte land”’. 65. Ibid. 66. See Chapter 2. 67. Treklangen (June–July 1961), 34. ‘Bernd Andresen: Efter Sendemandsmødet’. 68. Treklangen (October 1963), 99–101. ‘H.F. Petersen: For 100 år siden’. 69. Treklangen (May 1964), 20–22. ‘H.F. Petersen: For 100 år siden’. 70. Treklangen (April 1964), 3. ‘Ebbe Vestergaard: Hvad vil vi med den fest?’. 71. Ibid. 72. LAS: De Sønderjyske Danske Samfund: Sager vedr. stævnet på Skamlingsbanken, 1964’ [hereafter DSDS]: ‘Arne G. Larsen, kladde til pressemeddelelse’ (No date). 73. LAS: DSDS: ‘Program – på Skamlingsbankens historiske festplads’ (No date). 74. Ibid. 75. This will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. 76. LAS: DSDS: ‘G. Peters-Lehm, Vel mødt på Skamlingsbanken! En dag, der vil gå over i historien. Opsats til danske dagblade’ (5 July 1964). 77. Ibid. 78. LAS: DSDS: ‘Arrangementudvalget, Det store Skamlingsbankestævne, søndag d. 12. juli’ (No date). 79. See, for example: Hansen, ’H.P. Hanssens historische Bedeutung’; Hesselholt Clemmesen, ’H.P. Hanssen’; or Hopp, ’H.P. Hanssen in der deutschen Geschichtsschreibung’. 80. LAS: DSDS: ‘Arrangementudvalget: Det store Skamlingsbankestævne, søndag d. 12. juli’ (No date). 81. Ibid. 82. See: Andersen, ’Fædrelandsfølelser og sur-sød satire’.

146  •  Beyond the Border

83. Treklangen (June–July 1964), 35–36. ‘Wilhelm Klüver: Lad os slide, men ikke slide hinanden op!’. 84. Ibid. 85. Flensborg Avis (19 December 1964). ‘Detlev Lorenzen: Der var engang…’. 86. Flensborg Avis (30 December 1964). ‘Leo Dane, næstformand i SlesvigLigaen: Tjener ikke dansk Formaal?’. 87. Flensborg Avis (8 January 1965). ‘Nogle præperandelever, Vrå højskole, Vendsyssel: Godt Nytår – D. Lorenzen’. 88. Flensborg Avis (8 January 1965). ‘Knud Skov Farland, Kbh: Ingen kommentarer’. 89. Flensborg Avis (12 January 1965). ‘Detlef Lorenzen: Kæft, trit og retning!’. 90. Treklangen (December 1964), 122. ‘Georg Lesch: Hundrede År under Tyskland’. 91. Ibid. 92. Treklangen (August 1964), 63–64. ‘Joachim Martin: Dansk-tysk i 1964’. 93. Flensborg Avis (29 January 1965). ‘De ældre første ordet – Det nationalpolitiske ungdomsmøde i aftes bevægede sig i afstukne baner’. 94. Flensborg Avis (30 January 1965). ‘A: Fødselsveer’. 95. Ibid.

Bibliography Andersen, Nils Erik. ‘Fædrelandsfølelser og sur-sød satire: omkring en kendt episode fra den slesvigske sprogstrid’. Sønderjysk månedsskrift (2002): 249–56. Betts, Paul. ‘Germany, International Justice and the Twentieth Century’. History and Memory 17, no. 1–2 (2005): 45–86. Bohn, Robert, Christoph Cornelissen and Karl Christian Lammers. Vergangenheitspolitik und Erinnerungskulturen im Schatten des Zweiten Weltkriegs: Deutschland und Skandinavien seit 1945. Essen: Klartext, 2008. Cesarani, David. After Eichmann: Collective Memory and the Holocaust since 1961. London: Routledge, 2005. Eyal, Gil. ‘Identity and Trauma: Two Forms of the Will to Memory’. History and Memory 16, no. 1 (2004): 5–36. Festersen, Jürgen. ‘Dänemark und die deutsche Volksgruppe in Nordschleswig 1940 bis 1945’. In Deutschsprachige Minderheiten 1945: Ein europäischer Vergleich, edited by Manfred Kittel, Horst Mölle, Jiri Pesek and Oldrich Tuma, 571–612. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2007. Gassert, Philipp and Alan E. Steinweis. Coping with the Nazi Past: West German Debates on Nazism and Generational Conflict, 1955–1975. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. Giesen, Bernhard. ‘The Trauma of the Perpetrators: The Holocaust as the Traumatic Reference of German National Identity’. In Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity, edited by Jeffrey C. Alexander, 112–21. Berkeley, CA; London: University of California Press, 2004.

Contesting, Celebrating and Questioning  •  147

Hansen, Hans Schultz. ‘H.P. Hanssens historische Bedeutung: zum 150. Geburtstag des Minderheitenpolitikers’. Grenzfriedenshefte, (2012): 75–86. ———. ‘”Så har vi dem igen” – kontinuitet og brud i det tyske mindretals ledelse hen over 1945’. Sønderjyske Årbøger, (2014): 313–34. Henningsen, Lars N. and Frank Lubowitz. eds. Stemmer fra mindretallene – en interviewbog. Stimmen aus den Mindreheiten – ein Interviewbuch. Flensburg; Aabenraa: Studieafdelingen ved dansk centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig; Archiv/Historische Forschungsstelle der deutschen Volksgruppe, 2011. Hesselholt Clemmesen, Michael. ‘H.P. Hanssen – den danske generalstabs stjerneagent ’Z’ i Berlin’. Sønderjysk månedsskrift, no. 3 (2012): 114–21. Hirsch, Marianne. ‘The Generation of Postmemory’, Poetics Today 29, no. 1 (2008): 103–28. Hopp, Peter. ‘H.P. Hanssen in der deutschen Geschichtsschreibung’. Grenzfriedenshefte, (2012): 87–98. Kardel, Harboe. Deutsche Jugendarbeit in Nordschleswig, Wiederaufbau in den Jahren 1947–1972. Apenrade: Deutschen Jugendverband Nordschleswig, 1972. Lubowitz, Frank. ‘Det tyske mindretal i Danmark 1945–1955’. In En europæisk model? Nationale mindretal i det dansk-tyske grænseland 1945–2000, edited by Jørgen Kühl, 115–33. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2002. Peitsch, Helmut. ‘Towards a History of “Vergangenheitsbewältigung”: East and West German War Novels of the 1950s’. Monatshefte 87, no. 3 (1995): 287–308. Pendas, Devin O. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, 1963–1965: Genocide, History, and the Limits of the Law. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Rinner, Susanne. ‘Topographies of Memory: The Student Movement in Germany and the US Representation in Contemporary German Literature’. In Changing the World, Changing Oneself, edited by Belinda Davis et al., 65– 82. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2010. ———. The German Student Movement and the Literary Imagination: Transnational Memories of Protest and Dissent. New York: Berghahn Books, 2013. Schissler, Hanna. ‘Rebels in Search of a Cause’. In The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949–1968, edited by Hanna Schissler, 459–67. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Siegfried, Detlef. ‘“Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?” Voices of Conflict and Consensus between Generations in 1960s West Germany’. Journal of Contemporary History 40, no. 4 (2005): 727–44. ———. ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger – Youth, Pop Culture, and the Nazi Past’. In Coping with the Nazi Past: West German Debates on Nazism and Generational Conflict, 1955–1975, edited by Philipp Gassert and Alan E. Steinweis, 144– 60. New York; Oxford: Berghan Books, 2006.

O5 Young People Enjoying Life and Having Fun

Life Is Too Good to Fight a National Struggle, c. 1957–67

In the late 1950s and 1960s, leisure activities filled the free time between education, apprenticeship or work, and home life, either in the dormitory or the family home. Furthermore, leisure provided a space for young people to meet and socialise with peers. For Danishand German-minority youths, leisure contained a national element too, as, in the border region, leisure activities were nationally divided. This meant that in a given town or village, largely the same leisure activities were typically offered by both national groups, in Danish and German sports clubs, choirs and more. Leisure was, in other words, nationalised; and it was a critical part of the so-called national efforts, organised by the minority establishments. The tradition of dividing leisure along national lines was an old one. It preceded even the 1920 border change and was particularly dominant in the interwar and war years.1 Minority-organised leisure activities reached more young people than the education system. This was due to the fact that, for some young people, leisure activities facilitated their main contact with the minority. Importantly, most minority youths did not attend the two secondary schools or study at university, where they would have had the opportunity to be members of the two minority student associations, Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten (VSSt) and Foreningen af Sydslesvigske Studerende (FSS). If, for example, minority youths held apprenticeships or worked in at a workplace not owned by another

Young People Enjoying Life  •  149

member of the minorities, their main affiliation with other minority peers would be through leisure activities. The kinds of activity available in the Danish and German groups were largely the same. Both minorities facilitated sport, overwhelmingly even the same disciplines: handball, gymnastics and rowing were the most popular ones. Furthermore, young people were engaged with folk dancing, which seems to have been one of the most popular non-gender-divided activities. By the late 1950s, however, young people’s past-time activities started to change. They began taking an interest in activities other than the traditional ones and, in particular, young people’s interest in music began to change. From the singing of traditional songs, often loaded with national pathos, young people became interested first in jazz and later in rock ’n’ roll, beat and pop music. Furthermore, young people began developing a taste of their own regarding the settings and atmospheres in which they wanted to socialise. Lastly, a particular fashion for young people developed, which challenged, in some cases, the notion that Germans and Danes were fundamentally different. This development was in no way unique to the Danish–German borderlands. From the late 1950s onwards, young people all over Western Europe began to adopt new interests in music and hobbies,2 a development sometimes characterised as ‘Americanisation’. Having reasearched this development in a West German context, historian Kaspar Maase argues that by using the term ‘Americanisation’, scholars perpetuate the rhetoric of sceptics of popular culture.3 Maase suggests applying the term ‘cultural democratisation’4 instead of accepting contemporaneous terminology. He sees the cultural developments in West Germany mainly as characterised by a rise of popular culture in the period 1955–70, and ‘the pioneering role played by the champions of a youth culture centred on international pop music’.5 Historians Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth agree with Maase on the international nature of young people’s new activities and interests. They point to the emergence of what they call ‘a global popular culture, inspired by new aesthetics emerging in art, film, architecture, graphic design, and fashion, joined with hippie ideologies and lifestyles and melted into a set of symbolic forms, which became an infinite resource of mobilisation in both East and West’.6 Despite common features of this development across Europe, they point out that ‘national and regional idiosyncrasies were still pervasive’.7 The consequences of a new youth culture were multiple. Detlef Siegfried has argued that it created new connections in society along generational lines, challenging class divisions.8 Practices, behaviours

150 • Beyond the Border

and taste in fashion and music spread across class lines, often from a working-class sphere and into the spheres of the more privileged youth of the middle classes and the universities.9 Furthermore, it caused some resentment in the older generation. Siegfried reports that by the early 1960s, 60 percent of adults complained that young people were too keen on pleasure,10 and Luisa Passarini has explored how youth were perceived to represent a danger to themselves and society in the USA and Italy in the 1950s.11 In the Danish–German borderlands, the emergence of new leisure activities also influenced the lives of young people. Their interest in the traditional forms of leisure did not disappear, nor did the new forms replace the traditional ones. It was, rather, that the often-international nature of new leisure activities for young people contributed to new connections being formed across the national divide. In some cases, it became the mutual interest in jazz, for example, and not the national belonging, that formed the basis of a community of young people. In addition to this, young people objected to the nationalisation of the new forms of leisure: the new past-times and interests, they argued, could not be part of the traditional national struggle.

‘A Part of the National Efforts’: Traditional Leisure Activities in North and South Schleswig In the Danish–German border region, organised leisure activities for minority youths were an important aspect of fostering a national consciousness. Besides providing a space for young people to meet and socialise with other youths, leisure was also a framework within which young people could remain in a ‘Danish’ or ‘German’ context. In 1960, Vulkanen stated this very clearly in a description of DAN, the Danish gymnastics club in Flensburg: Our aims with DAN are not only to teach gymnastics. Of course the physical development is most important. But implicitly the name ‘DAN’ shows that the association seeks to influence its members nationally. By confronting young people with tasks and problems, we aim to strengthen and mature them, in order to make them capable of taking on work and responsibility in South Schleswig.12

In similar ways, Jugendverband stated in its statues that: The German-minded youth of North Schleswig agree on their will to: 1. Nourish and encourage the German language. 2. Through gymnastics and sport continue the great, German tradition of exercise. 3. Practise

Young People Enjoying Life • 151

German well-being (Geselligkeit) in a joyous community. Such are the purposes of ‘Deutsche Jugendverband’ in North Schleswig.13

Both minorities invested significant amounts of time and energy in providing the best possible range of activities. They focused mostly on sport, but activities such as scouting, amateur theatre, folk dancing and lecture nights were common as well. Practising the language whilst taking part in these activities was also an essential part of the minorities’ missions; both oral history accounts as well as linguist Karen Margrethe Pedersen’s studies of language and daily life in the border region make clear, however, that German-minority youths speaking ‘too much’ Low Danish, and Danish-minority youths speaking ‘too much’ German remained a challenge for both organising bodies – SdU and Jugendverband.14 The national division of leisure activities was a consequence of both minority and majority initiatives: in North Schleswig, for example, membership of a German-minority association often prevented membership of a Danish one too. There were clear consequences of this division for young people. Günter Weitling, for example, was barred from membership of a Danish handball team because he played on a German one too;15 similarly, the Christiansen brothers’ and Ursula Tästensen’s concerns about Kreis Junger Schleswiger’s formal membership of Jugendverband were that they did not want to make Danish-majority guests of Kreis Junger Schleswiger default members of a German-minority association. As relations between Danes and Germans began to soften, the decline in national hostilities spilled over to the sphere of leisure activities too. This made interaction possible to a certain extent. Danish and German teams from both sides of the border played against each other in tournaments, for example, and sometimes a minority team was even allowed access to the facilities of a majority one. But there were also limits, as Hans Andreasen, the chairman of SdU’s athletics group explained in 1959 in Treklangen. According to Andreasen, ‘talent [was] recognised on both sides and [Danes] [were] even allowed to use the German football fields and join their training’.16 On Danish minorityyouths playing sports in German clubs, however, the chairman was less willing to compromise. He said: Conditions are often better in the German clubs. Now and then Danish youths do not want to admit to their German friends that they play in a Danish club and they drift into the German clubs to be with their friends. But this far from justifies membership of a German club. Danish youths should join the smaller group and help it. Danish sport is part of the Danish efforts in South Schleswig.17

152 • Beyond the Border

Similar positions were communicated by Dansk Gymnasitikforening Flensborg (DGF). In a letter to SdU, for example, the association requested more funding for its activities, arguing that ‘good conditions attract[ed] young people … otherwise they land in the hands of the opponent’.18 The letter asserts: We need help pulling together our football-playing boys within our own framework … simply in order to counteract the German advancement here. May I remind you of the fact that, in the last one-and-a-half-years, six new German football clubs have been established in Flensburg alone? I am aware that not so few of their players have attended Danish schools.19

Evidently, the association’s use of formulations such as ‘the hands of the opponent’ and ‘the German advancement’ could just be ways of convincing SdU that providing more funding was necessary. Thus the references could be seen as a perpetuation of a familiar rhetoric rather than actual descriptions of how things were perceived. Either way, the national division of sport was an unmistakeable ideal, even if in practice it was not all-encompassing. In North Schleswig, the German minority upheld the division too, although, in reality, it was impossible to maintain a clear-cut separation. In 1959, Jes Schmidt, chairman of Jugendverband, discussed the situation: Does one think that our handball players from Haderslev become less German because they play in the finals against a Danish handball team? Or that our handball girls from Tinglev think about the national struggle when they play in Sønderjyllandshallen [a Danish venue in Aabenraa] against Danish teams? I think that they become even more German … The Danes know exactly who they have before them. Young German North Schleswigers.20

Schmidt continued by mentioning that isolation from the Danes was impossible, and that playing against Danish teams in tournaments was acceptable. The national division, however, he believed should remain overall. Oral history accounts support the notion that when choosing a leisure activity, German-minority youths were expected to participate in activities provided within the minority’s framework.21 However, belonging to the minority also meant that one’s choices were limited. The German minority was unable to offer to young people as wide of a range of activities as the surrounding Danish majority. The programme of the annual gathering at Knivsbjerg in 1958, a longstanding German-minority tradition,22 shows that sporting activities for youths included handball, fistball, and track and field. In addition,

Young People Enjoying Life  •  153

singing and folk-dancing competitions took place.23 These activities, as well as rowing, were the German minority’s main priority. In particular, fistball was interesting vis-à-vis the national element of leisure; the discipline was invented in Germany in 1870 and not played in Denmark generally, but mainly in countries affiliated with the German cultural sphere.24 Similarly, within rowing, national divisions were maintained; for example, the boats used by the minority’s rowing clubs differed from those used in the Danish clubs. According to a German-minority male born 1951, and very active in Aabenraa’s German rowing club, this formally prevented Danish and German rowing clubs cooperating until, finally, in the 1970s, it was decided to use the same boat type.25 Despite the minority’s focus on a limited number of disciplines, the activity level within those disciplines was high. A tournament programme from 1963, for example, shows that German-minority men’s handball as well as fistball had two leagues each with six teams. Each league played a total of thirty handball games and fifteen fistball games during the season.26 For women, one handball league with seven teams played a total of twenty-one games.27 The total number of German-minority handball and fistball teams in 1961, including those not playing in the best leagues, was stated in Volkskalender as

Figure 5.1 Young German minorities playing handball, 1960s. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

154  •  Beyond the Border

thirty-one for fistball and sixty-one for handball.28 Volkskalender also stated that ‘around 200 rowers attended the annual spring meet’ and that German minority rowers attended three different competitions in Schleswig-Holstein that year.29 Furthermore, fifteen German schools in North Schleswig offered a total of thirty-two evening courses for youths, mostly in singing, music, arts and crafts.30 During the first half of the 1960s, however, Jugendverband, in its own words, experienced both successes and disappointments. In 1962, Volkskalender reported that youth take-up of courses and minority activities was declining, according to Jugendverband mainly because of the growing popularity of television. Volkskalender added that ‘this [was] regrettable because it [was] an important part of the national efforts’.31 In 1963, Volkskalender wrote about Jugendverband’s marching band that ‘sadly the days of large concerts [were] over’ and that ‘new ways of activating young people [were] necessary.32 On the other hand, Jugendverband wrote, in 1964, that it had had its best gathering at Knivsberg so far, and that it planned to start publishing a magazine for the German-minded youth, Die Brücke, similar to the Danish minority’s Treklangen.33 Overall, Jugendverband thus experienced some decline in its activities, albeit sport remained popular; even by the late 1960s sport continued to be central to the German minority, as Die Brücke stated clearly in 1967: When we play sports, we are not only physically active. The entire individual is activated, psychologically and spiritually. The happy feeling gives us new energy and strength … Sport, just like life, fosters willpower and makes us goal-oriented. It still applies that we must submit ourselves to the rules of the game; control and restrain ourselves; be tolerant; honour our competitor; work hard; refrain from cheating; accept defeat; and be critical of ourselves. What can better strengthen the character of a young person?34

The German minority advocated sport as a positive element for young people. But the minority also continued to subject sport to national divisions. In the same issue of Die Brücke, for example, Harald Knecht wrote about some of the dilemmas vis-à-vis sport. First, Knecht claimed that increased cooperation between Danish and German sports associations was still prevented because of the refusal of Danish clubs to cooperate with German ones. Second, he argued that Jugendverband – despite the wishes of many youths – could not allocate resources to a football team without compromising handball.35 Clearly, the national boundaries and divisions between Danes and Germans still existed in sports in 1967.

Young People Enjoying Life • 155

South of the border, Danish-minority leisure and sport associations upheld the division between Danes and Germans too. Similar to Jugendverband’s focus on sport in North Schleswig, most of the associations in South Schleswig affiliated with SdU were indeed sports clubs. The two associations mentioned above, DGF and DAN, each focused on different disciplines: DGF mainly on football and handball; DAN on swimming and gymnastics. In addition to these two, a large number of other Danish-minority sports clubs existed all over South Schleswig. When analysing the membership numbers of DGF and DAN during this period, however, a pattern emerges that suggests that the Danish minority also experienced difficulties maintaining the interest of young people between the ages of 15 and 18. Throughout the period, DAN remained relatively constant in size, with around 400 members, but the age distribution of the members changed. In 1955/56, 269 members were under the age of 14; 179 members were between the ages of 14 and 18; and 115 members were over 18 years old.36 In 1964/65, the number of members aged 14 was down to 95,37 and in 1968/69 it was 12.38 Although substantial fluctuation characterised the age distribution of DAN’s members during all of the years between 1956 and 1969, the decline of members between the ages of 14 and 18 was evident.39 Unfortunately, the figures available for DGF are less

Figure 5.2 Young Danish-minority gymnasts, 1960s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

156  •  Beyond the Border

comprehensive; nevertheless, the pattern detected from the data that exists is similar. Between 1962 and 1969, membership figures were relatively stable at roughly 500. The number of members between the ages of 15 and 18 went from 193 in 1962/63 to 81 in 1968/69.40 Overall, sport attracted a large number of Danish-minority youths, but the numbers also suggest that, in the 1960s, some Danish-minority youths between the ages of 14 and 18 avoided the associations. In addition to sport, music and singing were other popular leisure activities, and the idea of particular Danish and German national spheres existed here too. This was not a new phenomenon. The singing of songs and hymns was practised both in the private and the public spheres and, particularly for minority children in the border region, singing was also a way of learning the Danish or German language.41 The songs sung were often patriotic ones, about the nation and its strife, the landscape, or a particular journey or learning process of the people.42 Shedding light on young people’s perceptions on music, a Danish-minority woman born in 1936 in Flensburg explained, in 2013, how she remembered the role of music in her childhood and early youth in the late 1940s and early 1950s: What really made a great impression on me were the songs … music really was important. We sang patriotic songs not only in school but also at meetings and leisure activities … Also, when I stayed with a Danish foster family, we sat in the living room, the wife played the organ and we sang patriotic songs for almost an hour every night.43

In addition, the woman explained: ‘next to my Danish experience, I had a German one too’.44 She elaborated: My aunt worked in a theatre and sometimes we children were given tickets if the show was not sold out. In that theatre they played the old pre-war operettas by Strauss and so on. And I must admit that, actually, I really liked them … It was a little more easy …45

The fact that she remembered these experiences as separate Danish and German ones indicates that the ideal of separating ‘Danish’ and ‘German’ activities was valid for music too. Furthermore, the almost apologetic explanation of her attendance to the operettas suggests that enjoying ‘German’ music activities challenged Danish-minority social norms. Her description of the German operettas as ‘easy’ was probably a reflection on the lyrics in contrast to the more serious nature of patriotic Danish songs. As this lady spoke mostly German in her family home, however, it could also be that the familiarity of language influenced her perceptions of certain types of music.

Young People Enjoying Life • 157

‘You Cannot Nationalise the International’: Young People’s New Interests and Their Rejection of Nationally Divided Leisure Activities By the late 1950s, young people’s interest in music began to challenge the national divisions of leisure activities. In 1956, Vulkanen reported that the Danish youth magazine, Vi Unge, was now available at the school, but that ‘apart from a number of jazz fans’ few Danish-minority youths would be interested in it.46 According to Vulkanen, students at Duborg-Skolen were more interested in cultural issues.47 But later issues of Vulkanen show that Danish-minority youths were in fact interested in jazz.48 The paper’s activity calendar for 1957 alone includes a jazz lecture as well as a jazz performance and a dance.49 From the late 1950s to the mid 1960s, the topic of jazz surfaced on a regularly basis, mostly in the form of portraits of famous jazz musicians or concert reviews. In 1959, for example, Vulkanen contained a four-page-long article entitled ‘The King of Swing’, about the American jazz musician Benny Goodman.50 It was the longest and main article of that particular issue. Jazz concert reviews – for example, the three-page-long review of Hamburg-based Old Merry Tale Jazz Band’s performance in Deutsches Haus, a large venue in Flensburg51 – were taken very seriously. The reviewer was disappointed by the band’s performance, discussing in detail the performance and several of its technical aspects.52 Another example was the review of Acker Bilk’s Jazz band’s concert in Flensburg in April 1962. The Vulkanen reviewer claimed that the band was one of the best in Europe and he challenged a review in Flenborg Avis by arguing that ‘it should be a personal choice which concert one wishes to attend, and it [was] not strange that more people attend Mr Acker Bilk than The Cardinals.53 The scope and level of detail in these reviews show that jazz had become a major interest for some youths. Furthermore, the amount of space dedicated to jazz in Vulkanen suggests that the readers were interested. Nobody complained about the amount of space dedicated to jazz, as was the case with other topics such as the activities of Moral Re-Armament, and even the minority’s own student association, FSS.54 Young people, however, were unwilling to accept that jazz should be subjected to the same national division as sport. In 1957, Uwe Taubert wrote a piece in Vulkanen with the title ‘Finally Flensburg has a Danish jazz club!’. It reads: The club called Storyville is located in a basement under the student halls in Stuhrsallee. The club is dedicated to jazz only, and schlager, rock

158  •  Beyond the Border

’n’ roll and other artistic activities are banned. There are around twentyfive members of the club who all play themselves. They are dedicated to the classic New Orleans style and interpret the old negro woth songs [sic.].55

In the following issue of Vulkanen, Taubert wrote again about the club: Some people have protested against the fact that I coincidentally had written ‘Danish jazz club’. The club is supported by the Danish student halls, but I did not write that it was only for Danish-minded members. The club is indeed a jazz club and it is not a national organisation. It would be too narrow-minded to deny access to students from the German schools and, actually, it would be impossible to start a jazz club on such foundation. Music – in particular jazz – is international and will not be stopped by national borders.56

Uwe Taubert’s correction of his first article about the jazz club is significant for two reasons. First, he presented a new interpretation of the role of music by arguing that its audiences should not be subjected to national divisions. Stating this, he actually challenged – perhaps unintentionally – the conventional wisdom that leisure activities were (or should be) part of the national work of the Danish minority. Second, Taubert’s stressed the importance of the nature of the activity. Whereas the club did not ban members on the basis of their nationality, it restricted what kind of music was allowed in the club. In other words, the dedication to jazz and the rejection of schlager and rock ’n’ roll made more of a difference to the club than the national affiliation of the individual member. This is therefore an example of young people defining their identity through their dedication to a certain kind of music, and the dedication transgressed national loyalty. In North Schleswig, jazz was popular too; and a similar dedication to it could be found among German-minority youths. In an oral history interview from 2014, a man born in 1935, in Haderslev, explained that he played the piano in a Haderslev-based jazz trio called ‘The Flamingos’. The trio focused on jazz but, in order to get jobs, ‘it was necessary to also play the schlager and folk songs that people wanted to hear’.57 Initially, the trio played only for German-minority audiences but, with time, they started playing for Danish ones too.58 Other North Schleswig jazz bands were the ‘Syncoppatters’ from Aabenraa, the ‘Creole Stampers’ from Sønderborg and the ‘Darttownband’ from Haderslev.59 Although the bands were mentioned in Die Brücke, no information exists about whether they consisted of German-minority youths only. Similar to the jazz scene in South Schleswig, the North Schleswig jazz scene did not discriminate on the basis of national orientation

Young People Enjoying Life • 159

either. The January–February 1966 issue of Die Brücke contained an article about a jazz club in Sønderborg.60 According to the article, the club had existed for ‘about ten years [by 1966]’ and hosted ‘lots of concerts’ with ‘famous bands like Chris Berber and [Danish] Papa Bue’.61 The article reviews a recent performance and estimates that about 300 people had been present. According to the review, ‘all kinds of people’ made up the audience although ‘secondary-school students dominated the crowds’.62 Members of the club had made it clear to the visitors from Die Brücke that ‘Germans and German North Schleswigers [were] just welcome as Danes, Britons, Americans or Swedes, [as] jazz [did] not know of borders between people’. The article concludes that ‘it [seemed] the atmosphere in the border region [had] a stimulating effect, at least regarding jazz’.63 The examples from both North and South Schleswig show that young people’s interest in jazz was exercised without consideration of the traditional national division of leisure. This seems to have been a consequence of the perception that jazz in itself was international and therefore could not be subjected to Danish and German national divisions. At the same time, it seems that minority youths held onto divisions of other activities, even if, in reality, those activities were international too. In 1959, for example, Vulkanen discussed the question in relation to boys’ and girls’ Scouts. Vulkanen wrote that even if Scouting was international and codes of honour existed between scouts from different countries, ‘South Schleswig Scouts [should] find their purpose with the nation’.64 Furthermore, Vulkanen argued that ‘A very distinct Danish Scouting spirit [existed] which [was] very different from that of the “Pfadfinders” [German Scouts]’.65 A similar pattern of not making national distinctions characterised young people’s interest in other genres of music emerging in the 1960s. Whereas jazz perhaps interested only a small proportion of youths within the minorities, from the mid 1960s onwards, young people more generally became interested in pop and beat music. A number of scholars focusing on youth culture in the 1960s have established the influence of British-inspired beat and pop music – and in particular The Beatles – on young people all over Western Europe.66 According to Konrad Dussel, for example, who has studied the hit charts of the West German youth magazine Bravo, a substantial shift took place in West Germany throughout the 1960s from German to English popular music.67 This fits with the recollection of one Germanminority woman, born 1953 in Aabenraa. In 2013, she described the role of music in her childhood and youth the in following way:

160  •  Beyond the Border

My parents liked listening to German schlager music … But what influenced me – like they did all other [young people] – were The Beatles. After school I listened to Jørgen Mylius [Danish radio host of a pop music show] and I listened to Radio Luxembourg before bed. I was exactly the generation who listened to Donovan and [Bob] Dylan, and we all became hippies … or so we thought [laughs] … You know, we were inspired by all this coming from abroad: ‘Flower Power’ and ‘Make Love Not War’ and we wrote that on headbands and sang the songs when we sat around the campfire and so on.68

South of the border, a Danish-minority man born in Flensburg, in 1953 as well, recalled similar memories: When I was thirteen/fourteen years old, we young people were very inspired by all the new music and my big idols were The Beatles. And it became clear very quickly that one had to be either a Beatles or a Rolling Stones fan. One could not be both. Beatles were kind of the nice ones and Rolling Stones were the slightly more dangerous ones … We listened to Radio Luxembourg a lot and to the English pirate stations. And then we bought vinyl single records.69

The two quotations illustrate the strong influence of modern, international music on young people in the mid 1960s. But young people’s growing fascination with new music can actually be traced back to the late 1950s, at least in South Schleswig. In 1957, Vulkanen reported how a group of students at Duborg-Skolen, calling themselves ‘Antiochsentroterne’, rebelled against the school parties in their current form. Dissatisfied with the choice of music – a Danish folk orchestra – and with folk dancing, the group showed this by ‘going the opposite way around the pear tree’.70 In the same issue of Vulkanen, a group of students from the seventh form voiced their unhappiness with the way in which the school celebrated its anniversary. The students wrote that ‘not much [could] be said about the band because it was really bad. Waltzes and so on [were] fine for gatherings of people over the age of sixty-five, but not for a school party’.71 The students suggested booking ‘a better band’ and arranging a bar with high chairs, dimmed red lights and large advertising signs.72 Later descriptions of parties at Duborg-Skolen show that eventually the students were given more responsibility for organising parties and gatherings. As early as February 1958, Vulkanen wrote that ‘the latest party was a big improvement’73 especially because students and teachers had organised it together. By 1963/64, it seemed that the school parties at Duborg-Skolen suited the students. Vulkanen wrote about the New Year’s ball that it was ‘a huge success’ and

Young People Enjoying Life  •  161

that ‘we thought it was an exceptionally good party with the perfect atmosphere’. Vulkanen elaborated: The gym was decorated beyond recognition. The tables, placed under red and white striped canopies, were lit up by coloured lamps. The ceiling was lowered with garlands and streamers [and] we danced to a really good band from Kappel [town in South Schleswig] [called] ‘De Tampen’ … Later, when a twisting competition was organised, the atmosphere went crazy. One could observe all kinds of twisting.74

The students at Duborg-Skolen were influenced by developments going on around them. In the early to mid 1960s, a popular music scene in Flensburg grew considerably and it paid little attention to national questions.75 The new bands were male dominated and largely

Figure 5.3 Danish-minority youths, 1960s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

162  •  Beyond the Border

inspired by The Beatles. They typically had four to five members and an English name, such as The Avalons, The Bongos, The Beach Birds and The Creaking Door, to name a few.76 The town of Flensburg had several different clubs and discotheques, but Deutsches Haus in particular organised pop concerts and other gatherings.77 From 1965, Deutsches Haus began hosting Danish–German pop nights where, in friendly competition, Danish and German beat bands played for large audiences, before the best band was announced winner of the competition.78 The Danish minority seemed to neither encourage nor discourage participation in these events. The minority’s official youth publication, Treklangen, listed the pop nights in Deutsches Haus in its activity calendar but did not discuss them any further. Nevertheless, a fundamental generational difference existed regarding music. In March 1963, Treklangen assessed pop music in a way that few youths would have agreed with. The article, entitled ‘Why is pop not art?’ argues: If we consider pop from a strictly musical perspective, we see that it is nothing but the leftovers of the refined music of Brahms, Chopin, Wagner and other composers, removed completely from its context. It is a vulgar misuse of the sensory elements of music. Pop is guided by superficial thinking, which matches the careless way it is listened to, either a precondition for or a consequence of consuming pop.79

In 1964, Treklangen wrote about modern music again, when it discussed that, with the advancement of the portable radio, a new morale was necessary.80 According to Treklangen, young people playing loud music in public was a growing problem, and it wrote sarcastically that the portability of modern radios meant that by playing music alone in one’s room, it was possible to ‘show some old-fashioned consideration of others’ too.81 Finally, in connection with a review of a play performed by the Danish youth association of Flensburg, FUF, Flensborg Avis reported that ‘at the opening night on Saturday, forty-five youngsters later danced to a beat orchestra, whose members all had very nice musical instruments. If only they knew how to play them…!’82 Overall, it seemed that the older generation accepted young people’s taste for modern music even if they did not share it. The beat band referred to in Flensborg Avis could have been The Haggles. The band consisted of four Danish-minded young men. According to historian Wolfgang Mathiesen’s comprehensive analysis of the beat scene in 1960s Flensburg, their interest in music started in the Danish Boy Scouts association in South Schleswig.83 The members

Young People Enjoying Life  •  163

of the band all attended Duborg-Skolen in the late 1960s, and they played at the school’s parties too. In 1968, Vulkanen wrote about a school party that ‘music was provided by The Haggles, who played very loudly. This is nothing unusual … The unusual part [was] that we had been allowed to invite students from all the German secondary schools … Around 200 guests came to the party and the atmosphere was superb’.84 Oral histories confirm as well that an interaction took place through music between the Danish-minority and German-majority youth, as a Danish-minority male, born 1953, explained in 2014: When I started secondary school, I also began playing music but only together with friends that were not from the school … I somewhat led a double life, with interests that were not connected to the school. I only got that connection [to the Danish minority] when I started organising concerts with German bands in the Danish secondary school … As I remember it, SdU were quite open towards it … I also once organised a concert in Flensborghus [The minority’s main gathering place in Flensburg].85

The phrasing of the interviewee that he led a ‘double life’ because he played music with German-majority youths confirms that Danishminority youths continued to distinguish between activities as ‘Danish’ or ‘German’. On the other hand, the secondary school allowed students from the German secondary schools to attend the school parties and for concerts with German bands to be held in Danishminority venues. If Danish-minority young people were interested in the new music, they were given the opportunity to pursue that interest within the minority’s framework, together with their majority peers and friends. This suggests that the schools and other youth leaders also sought to accommodate young people; although, being able to extend the invitation to German-majority students was not so easily achieved. The German-minority youth in North Schleswig shared with their Danish-minority peers an enthusiasm for modern music and creating the ‘right atmosphere’. In early 1965, the new German-minority youth magazine, Die Brücke, discussed the one-year anniversary of Jugendclub Tingleff, a youth club in the town of Tinglev, North Schleswig. According to the article, the club was decorated to the taste of young people ‘in order to make them feel welcome’.86 It had ‘cosy lamps and modern furniture’.87 Besides a radio and a record player, the club had a television set for watching German TV. It had tea- and coffee-making facilities as well as fizzy drinks and light beers available at cost price.88

164  •  Beyond the Border

Whereas the format of the club was new, the motivations behind establishing it were the same as with the minority’s other leisure activities. Harald Knecht from Jugendverband argued: While young people never used to dispute or question their connection with the minority, they now choose their leisure activities without any such concerns … Nobody can dispute that young people have changed enormously in recent years. 89

The club in Tinglev was established ‘in order for the minority to be able to get in touch with young people’.90 That way youths were offered a space where they could spend more time with other minority youths and, the minority hoping that this could ‘motivate [young people] to take responsibility for the task [German-minority activities]’.91 At the same time – and similar to what happened in South Schleswig – the club was open Danish youths too. Harald Knecht wrote that ‘undoubtedly, those who have used the club, including Danish guests, have enjoyed the wonderfully free atmosphere present there’.92 Overall, the minority seemed to regard the club as a success, although Harald Knecht expressed some reservations about it too. During the first half-year of its existence, the club hosted 85 club evenings with a total of 1,070 visitors, or 12.6 visitors per evening on average.93 According to Knecht, these numbers were very satisfactory. The club evenings were organised around themes such as craft evenings, TV and discussion evenings as well as games or ‘free’ evenings. According to Die Brücke, the craft and TV/discussion evenings were the least popular, whereas on ‘free’ evenings, ‘the house would be packed with people’.94 Harald Knecht thought this was ‘less positive’.95 He argued that ‘also in Tinglev, we have had the same negative experience, which we [have had] all over: young people do not have their own ideas and it is difficult motivating them to do anything’.96 Other contributions in Die Brücke disputed, however, that young people lacked motivation and did not know what to do with their time. Fifteen-year-old Elke Petersen argued that young people ‘[did] not want to cycle for kilometres only to take part in some activity organised by Jugendverband’. According to Petersen, they wanted to be able to participate in activities when and if they felt like it. She argued, regarding the club in Tinglev, that young people liked it because everyone was free to come and go as they pleased: ‘there [was] no duty to come and stay the entire night unless one [wanted] to’. She added that ‘previously this was very different. One was expected to show up to the given activity and stay all the way to the end’.97

Young People Enjoying Life  •  165

As indicated by Harald Knecht’s descriptions of the youth club in Tinglev, the older generation reacted somewhat disapprovingly to young people’s new ways of thinking and behaving. At the same time, however, attempts were made to accommodate young people’s new interests as could be seen, for example, in the programme of a Jugendverband seminar in September 1964. On the first day of the two-day seminar, one lecture was about being German in the border region, its title, ‘It pays to be German!’ clearly indicating its focus.98 The activity that followed this, however, was listed in the programme as ‘What is Jazz? Lecture with music examples followed by a nice time together’.99 The activity suggests that at least one interest of young people, in this case jazz, was taken into account. In 1966, the potential establishment of Jugendhof, a youth house in North Schleswig, constituted another example of attempts made by Jugendverband to accommodate young people’s interests. Before the place even opened, Manfred Ritter presented in Die Brücke an imaginary weekly schedule of activities in the new house. This imaginary schedule is interesting because it shows what kind of activities Ritter and Jugendverband envisaged and idealised. It includes activities such as film nights, modern dancing, ‘free’ evenings and, for Saturday, nights a ‘youth party – with a beat band and dancing’.100 The imaginary presentation of Jugendhof shows that it was the intention of Jugendverband to remain attractive to young people by accommodating their interests and tastes. In 1966, Jugendverband even compiled a comprehensive booklet with ideas for youth activities, stating also ‘[they] [had] to compete with the all the Danish offers’.101 The booklet contained a list of people who could be invited for lecture nights following a format which seemed strikingly similar to the ones organised by Kreis Junger Schleswiger: even the names and topics were similar to those organised by the Christiansen brothers a few years earlier in Aabenraa.102 Despite Jugendverband’s refusal to support Kreis Junger Schleswiger, in reality they eventually copied the idea after all. Moreover, the booklet suggested evenings covering ‘relevant themes for youths’: for example, showing James Bond films or two events that the booklet called ‘“beat beat beat” – with a beat band The Chunks as guest’103 and ‘“Rock’n’Roll – Jazz – Beat” – The changing of hits in the past decade with lead singer of The Chuncks, Carsten Jessen’.104 Despite the minority’s attempts to satisfy young people’s interests, some youths were simply uninterested in the official German-minority activities, especially the more traditional ones, as stated by 15-yearold Elke Petersen above. In 1965, Dr Augustin, one of the editors of

166  •  Beyond the Border

Die Brücke, furthermore brought attention to young people’s lack of interest in the German-minority’s annual summer camp.105 He reported that only six out of twenty-five participants in the camp on the island of Rømø in North Schleswig were minority youths. The rest were all German youths from south of the border. Augustin described the camp in the following way: So what happened in those ten days? Obviously, camp life was structured and regular regarding the meals and the activities during the day. The hours after breakfast were as always dedicated to Bible studies.106

Augustin compared the low number of minority participants to the fact that the German church had had more than one hundred confirmations of youths in the same year. He argued that young people earning their own money perhaps meant that they were more independent than previously and did not feel a need to be part of a group.107 Comparing Augustin’s description of the camp to the statements by young people on how they preferred to spend their free time, however, it seems plausible, too, that the nature of the camp simply no longer appealed to large numbers of youths. Hans Jürgen Nissen, a teacher at the secondary school in Aabenraa, suggested another explanation for the lack of young people’s interest in the minority’s activities. On the basis of an anonymous questionnaire showing that only fourteen out of forty-four students participated in Jugendverband’s activities, he argued that young people showed ‘resentment towards the activities of the youth association and all that [was] connected to it’. Explaining this development, Nissen suggested that perhaps young people’s resentment had to do with the fact that young people did not want to be part of an organisation led by people who ‘in the past had not always behaved democratically’.108 Nissen’s perspective was interesting because it represented a reflection on the minority’s tumultuous past. Nevertheless, it seems more plausible that some youths simply were less committed to restraining themselves to activities within the minority. Adult positions towards young people were essentially conflicting. In 1966, Die Brücke printed what they called ‘Good advice for teenagers’, adding that it could serve as inspiration for the teenagers who did not know what to do with their time.109 The advice supposedly was copied from an American judge, Philip P. Gillam, and it reads: Go home, shop for your mum, paint the garden fence, trim the hedges, mow the lawn, clean your room, wash the car, learn how to cook and get a job! Visit the ill, help the poor and the weak, and when you have

Young People Enjoying Life  •  167

done all this, and you are not yet tired, then take a good book and read it properly.110

The advice continues: Your parents are not obliged to support you. The city and society are not obliged to provide you with opportunities for entertainment and leisure. The world is not responsible for giving you a profession. You, on the contrary, are responsible for the world. You owe your time and energy to your to it.111

Die Brücke stated that ‘despite the fact that young people do not like to hear this, it [could] still be true’.112 Indeed, the minority establishment’s perceptions of young people was multi-faceted. By the second half of the 1960s, it was clear that the Germanminority youth had also become interested in a new kind of leisure that had little to do with the questions of German-minority life inside Denmark. Similar to what took place south of the border, young people were drawn to activities and took interest in things that resembled the interests of young people in other parts of Western Europe. Alongside hanging out and listening to music, another manifestation of this was fashion. In 1967, Die Brücke republished an article from a student paper of the German private school in Sønderborg called Treffpunkt. In the article, ‘Hey Girls’ (original title in English), the author – who named herself ‘Lisbeth – your fashion fan’ – wrote to her fellow students: What do you think about the new fashion? Isn’t it just cool? The skirts are getting shorter and the jackets are getting longer. Today you can make the craziest colour combinations: for example, orange and bright green; purple and red; purple and turquoise.113

Die Brücke also reported that ‘the fact that fashion even [existed] in society was a sign of wealth and of living in a time of balance and freedom’.114 The magazine argued that, since around 1945, young people had started to take an interest in fashion but that, today, young people were different from their parents and their grandparents mainly because they often received a respectable spending allowance.115 The article about fashion also discussed that young men – in addition to young women – had now become interested in fashion too. What was new, the article argued, was that young men and women now dressed the same way so that ‘nobody today was able to spot immediately whether someone was a young man or a young woman’.116 Die Brücke discussed the long hairstyles of young men several times. In 1965, Dr Augustin wrote that there was nothing wrong with the fact that young people were adopting what he called a ‘rock around

168  •  Beyond the Border

the clock’ fashion.117 He warned, however, that wearing one’s hair long was just another uniform and that uniforms were essentially bad for people.118 Finally, he mentioned that, on a visit to Flensburg, he had seen a ‘Beatle-dad’ with long hair walking along with his young child. Dr Augustin had thought that the young child seemed ‘more mature than her 20-years-older father, [and that in this case], ‘Beatling’ [was] a sin!’.119 In another article, a teacher from the secondary school wrote that he did not find long hair suitable for young men but he also did not want to condemn it.120 He claimed to have met a young man from Liverpool, who, he said, ‘presented some good arguments for why he had long hair’.121 Supposedly, the teacher also discussed the issue with his students in class and one girl said that she thought long-haired boys were cute. The teacher responded that ‘cute was probably the least accurate description but [that], of course, taste [was] individual’.122 Eventually, the teacher encouraged young people to help him understand new fashion as he concluded: I would be interested to know what you think about beat music and perhaps you could give me some advice on how I can reach a greater understanding of this kind of music. Also regarding hairstyles, I would like to hear from you. Your parents and teachers allowing it, would you want to have long hair?123

The reaction from a young man came in late 1966, after an article in the previous Die Brücke had claimed that young men with long hair could not be real sportsmen. The author of this article disagreed and argued that ‘the length of a person’s hair says nothing about the character of a human being … it is unbelievable how one subjective point of view can be presented as the absolute truth’. He continued by arguing that ‘several sociologists have argued that the “beatwave” and its peculiar side effects is a healthy development. That actually it lowered the likelihood of political radicalisation, crime and hypersexual behaviour’.124 It seemed that young men’s long hair was less controversial in South Schleswig than in North Schleswig. Neither Treklangen nor Vulkanen discussed the topic, even though class photos of graduates from Duborg-Skolen show clearly that young men in South Schleswig did adopt the longer hairstyles too.125 In fact, comparing class photos of the two minority secondary schools shows that, in the 1960s, more young men in South Schleswig than in North Schleswig had long hair. In addition, the class photos suggest that Danish-minority youths adopted the trend earlier than German-minority youths.126

Young People Enjoying Life  •  169

Danish-minority youths did, however, debate fashion in ways that resonated with opinions in North Schelswig. In the 1967/68 issue of FSS-Nyt, Harke Bahnsen, a Danish-minority student in Copenhagen wrote a long article about fashion for men in the previous decade. Bahnsen reflected: Thirty years ago, it was not us who set the benchmarks of men’s fashion. It was the heads of the family. Today, it is the other way around. The son and the daughter are role models when the older generations seek upto-date clothing. Youth of that time were not as interested in clothing as young people are today. They focused on saving money. We do not do that. We want to enjoy the moment in the best possible way.127

Bahnsen continued to discuss how clothes were the best way to show one’s personality, and that, during the previous decade, men’s fashion had taken inspiration from various international trends. For example, fashion had been influenced by ‘English rockers and bikers’, by ‘colourful, American hippies’ and by The Beatles’ fascination with India.128 Even though young people were inspired by international trends, their interest in fashion did not, on its own, challenge national identities; but, through fashion, young people became part of an international youth community which expressed itself in different ways then previously, through the clothes they wore. These expressions were connected to a certain taste in music, which in turn was connected to a certain set of values. These values included a focus on enjoying life and having fun, and rejected the ideas of self-controlled behaviour. The style in which the articles about music and fashion were written was much more humorous and unrestrained than the articles about political questions, such as the border or the past. With their interest in fashion and music, young people also established a space that they wanted to control themselves. In this space, the question of national differences between Danes and Germans was no longer as important. The international influence on minority-youth identities, through the emergence of new leisure activities, was substantial. It created mutual feelings of solidarity between young people regardless of their national belonging. Furthermore, it accentuated that if the older generations were unwilling to take the opinions of young people seriously in the established spheres, new spheres would form on young people’s own terms. However, the national-minority question did not disappear and, by the mid 1960s, minority youths also discussed national belonging more openly than ever before.

170 • Beyond the Border

Notes  1. For a study of German-minority youth activities, 1933–45, see: Jacobsen, ‘Tysk nazistisk ungdomsarbejde i Nordslesvig 1933–1945’.  2. See in particular: Schildt and Siegfried, Between Marx and Coca-Cola.   3. Maase, ‘Establishing Cultural Democracy’, 445.   4. Ibid., 429.  5. Ibid.   6. Klimke and Scharloth, 1968 in Europe, 6.  7. Ibid., 4.   8. Siegfried, ‘Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30?’.  9. Ibid., 732. 10. Ibid., 731 11. Passerini: ‘Youth as a Metaphor’, 318. 12. Vulkanen (June 1960), 10–11. ‘Gymnastikforeningen DAN’. 13. ADV: DJVN: ‘Satzungen des Deutschen Jugendverbandes für Nordschleswig’ (1963). 14. Pedersen, ‘Sprog og identitet i grænseregionen’. For a large study of the role of language in South Schleswig by the same author see: Pedersen, Dansk sprog i Sydslesvig. 15. OHI: TWS (3 February 2014): German-minority male born 1935. 16. Treklangen (June 1959), 3–5. ‘Interview med Hans Andreasen’. 17. Ibid. 18. DCBS: 141–60: DGF: ‘Letter to SdU’ (30 August 1959). 19. Ibid. 20. ADV: DJVN: ‘Frühjahrstagung des Deutschen Jugendverbands, Bericht des Hauptvorstandes’ (1959). 21. OHI: TWS (8 August 2013): German-minority female born 1953; OHI: TWS (31 March 2015): German-minority female born 1958; and OHI: TWS: (24 June 2015) German-minority male born 1951. 22. Since the plebiscites in 1920, German-minded North Schleswigers have gathered regularly at Knivsberg, a hill and meadow just north of Aabenraa. For activities at Knivsberg see, for example: Hansen, ‘Knivsberg’, 217; Andresen, ‘Knivsberg als “Botschaft“ im Grenzland‘; Peter, ‘Das Knivsbergfest‘: fast 100 Jahre jung’; or Adriansen, ‘Der Knivsberg‘. 23. ADV: DJVN: ‘Knivsbergtreffen 1958’. 24. Associating certain sports with a particular national identity was not unique to North Schleswig. Historians have payed particular attention to this topic in the case of Ireland, and the notions of British vs. Irish sports, in particular: Craith, Plural Identities, 175; and Hassan, ‘A People Apart’. 25. OHI: TWS: (24 June 2015): German-minority male born 1951. 26. ADV: DJVN: ‘Punktspielplan 1963’. 27. Ibid. 28. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1961), 91. ‘Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig’. 29. Ibid.

Young People Enjoying Life • 171

30. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1961), 85. ‘Abend und Jugendschulen, Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig’. 31. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1962), 101–2. ‘Abend- und Jugendschulen, Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig’. 32. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1963), 109–10. ‘Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig’. 33. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1964), 84–85. ‘Kaa: Deutscher Jugendverband’. 34. Die Brücke (September 1967), 4–5. ‘Lehrer Hans Westphal, Wert und Inhalt des Sportes’. 35. Die Brücke (September 1967), 5–7. ‘Harald Knecht: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Sports in der deutschen Volksgruppe’. 36. DCBS: F141–60. ‘Flensborg Bys Hovedkreds, Gymnastikforeningen ‘DAN’, 1951–77’ [hereafter DAN]: ‘Årsberetning 1955/1956’. 37. DCBS: F141–60: DAN: ‘Årsberetning 1964/1965’. 38. DCBS: F141–60: DAN: ‘Årsberetning 1968/1969’. 39. Annual reports exist for the entire period 1955/6 to 1968/9 in DCBS: F141– 60: DAN. The number of members between the ages of 14 and 18 from 1955/6 until 1968/9 were, in chronological order: 179, 76, 67, 112, 82, 23, 116, 95, 112, 44, 64, and 12. 40. DCBS: F141–60: DGF: ‘Årsberetning 1962/1963’ and ‘Årsberetning 1968/1969’. According to the annual reports in the same folder, the number of members between the ages of 15 and 18 from 1962/3 to 1968/9 were, in chronological order: 193, 214, 136, 95, 85 and 81. 41. Recently, historians have examined the relationship between music and national identity in several different countries. See, for example: Applegate and Potter, Music and German National Identity; Biddle and Knights, Music, National Identity, and the Politics of Location; Morra, Britishness, 14; Washabaugh, ‘Flamenco Music’; and Kelly, French Music. 42. In the 1970 edition of Liederbuch für Schleswig-Holstein (The Schleswig-Holstein Songbook) the first category of songs is entitled ‘Heitmat und Vaterland’ (‘Home and Fatherland’). See Schleswig-Holsteinischen Heimatbund, Liederbuch 5–37. Similarly, in the Danish equivalent, Folkehøjskolens Sangbog, (The Songbook of People’s Colleges) categories of songs include ‘Modersmålet’ (‘The Mother Tongue)’, ‘Historien’ (‘History’), ‘Danmark’ (‘Denmark’) and ‘Hjemstavnen’ (‘The homeland’): Foreningen for Højskoler og Landbrugsskoler, Folkehøjskolens sangbog. 43. OHI: TWS (14 Noember 2013): Danish-minority female born 1936. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid. 46. Vulkanen (October 1956), 4. ‘Vi Unge’. 47. Ibid. 48. The interest in and relevance of jazz was not only in the Danish–German borderlands. For an excellent study of jazz in divided Germany see: Poiger, Jazz, Rock, and Rebels. 49. Vulkanen (January–February 1957) ‘Kalender’. 50. Vulkanen (June 1959), 8–11. ‘Stig Hansen: The King of Swing’.

172 • Beyond the Border

51. The German House, Deutsches Haus, was a community centre in Flensburg built after the plebiscites in 1920 as a gift from the German government, thanking the city for voting to remain in Germany. 52. Vulkanen, no. 2, (1962), 3–5. ‘Gunnar Hagens: Elefant-jazz’. 53. Vulkanen, no. 2, (1962), 13–14. ‘Dieter Lenz: Mr. Aacker Bilk’s Jazzband på besøg i Flensborg’. 54. The following articles criticised the amount of space dedicated to FSS: Vulkanen (November 1956), ‘For meget FSS-stof’; Vulkanen (December 1956) ‘Ole Harck: Duborg-skolens FSS’ers Super-fase!’; Vulkanen (January– February 1957) ‘Hold Op!’ and ‘Leif Madsen: Kritik’. The following articles criticised the amount of space dedicated to MRA: Vulkanen (March 1961), 10., 13–14. ‘Peter Gerkens: ‘”Verdensfrelseren”’, and ‘Rolf-Dieter Nawrocki: Angående “MRA”’. 55. Vulkanen (August 1957). ‘Uwe Taubert: Endelig har Flensborg fået en dansk jazzklub!’. 56. Vulkanen (September 1957). ‘Uwe Taubert: Rettelse til artiklen “Ny Jazzklub”’. 57. OHI: TWS (3 February 2014): German-minority male born 1935. 58. Ibid. 59. Die Brücke (January–February 1966), 5. ‘JAZZ kennt keine Völkergrenzen’. 60. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid. 64. Vulkanen (June 1959), 19–20. ‘Sydselsvigsk Ungdom: Spejderne: Internationalt – Nationalt’. 65. Ibid. 66. See Introduction. 67. Dussel, ‘The Triumph of English-language Pop Music’, 131. 68. OHI: TWS (8 August 2013): German-minority female born 1953. 69. OHI: TWS (23 January 2014): Danish-minority male born 1953. 70. Vulkanen (November 1957) ‘Horst Petersen: Revolution?’. See:OHI: TWS (18 September 2014): Danish-minority female born 1948. According to the interviewee, ‘going around the pear tree’ was a tradition during breaks at Duborg. Holding each other’s hands, the students would form a circle around the tree and walk around it whilst singing. 71. Vulkanen (November 1957) ‘Utilfredse deltagere fra G7b: Skolens fødselsdag’ 72. Ibid. 73. Vulkanen (February 1958). ‘Kay Johannsen: Honning og Ris’. 74. Vulkanen (February 1964), 11–12. ‘DoR: EDF’s Nytårsbal’. 75. Reinhard C. Böhle and Broder Schwensen have edited a comprehensive study of the music scene in Flensburg in the second half of the twentieth century. See: Lorenzen and Schwensen, ‘Früher Jazz in Flensburg’; Kalies, ‘“Die zahllosen Pettiköter wippen“‘; Carstensen, ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll-Club Flying Saucers‘; and Oeding, ‘Beat und Rock in Flensburg‘. 76. See: Matthiessen, Twist & Shout.

Young People Enjoying Life  •  173

 77. Ibid.   78. Matthiessen, Twist & Shout, 83.  79. Treklangen (March 1963), 179. ‘Torbjørn Andersen: Hvorfor er pop ikke kunst?’.   80. Treklangen (November 1964), 106. ‘K: Teknik og moral’.   81. Ibid.   82. Flensborg Avis (28 February 1966). ‘Vellykket præmiere – Flensborg UF opførte “Der må være grænser”’.   83. Matthiessen, Twist & Shout, 96.   84. Vulkanen (October 1968), 29. ‘HP: E.F.D.-Dans’.   85. OHI: TWS (23 January 2014): Danish-minority male born 1953.   86. Die Brücke (January–February 1965), 8–9. ‘Harald Knecht: Ein Jahr Jugendclub Tingleff’.   87. Ibid.   88. Ibid.   89. Ibid.  90. Ibid.  91. Ibid.  92. Ibid.   93. Ibid.   94. Ibid.  95. Ibid.   96. Ibid.  97. Die Brücke (May–June 1965), 10. ‘Elke Petersen: Nur keinen Zwang: Jugendclub- oder Jugendarbeit?’.   98. ADV: DJVN: ‘Gerh. Kaadtmann: Rundschreiben No. 15/64’ (27 August 1964).  99. Ibid. 100. Die Brücke (January–February 1966), 6–9. ‘Manfred Ritter: Der Jugendhof – Zentrum der Jugendarbeit’. 101. ADV: DJVN: ‘Ratgeber für die Gestaltung von Jugendabenden’ (1966). 102. Ibid. Lectures were offered by, for example, Jef Blume, Paul Koopmann and Jes Schmidt. 103. Ibid. 104. Ibid. 105. Die Brücke (July–August 1965), 12–13. ‘Dr. Augustin: Ist die Zeit der Zeltlager vorbei? – Kritischer Bericht über die Zeltlager der deutschen Kirchengemeinden’. 106. Ibid. 107. Ibid. 108. Die Brücke (May–June 1965), 8–9. ‘H.J. Nissen: Was ist mit unseren Gymnasiasten los? Eine Untersuchung’. 109. Die Brücke (November–December 1966). ‘Guter Rat für “ Teenager”’ 110. Ibid. 111. Ibid. 112. Ibid. 113. Die Brücke (February 1967), 3–5. ‘Vita Fahrenholz: Jugend und Mode’.

174  •  Beyond the Border

114. Ibid. 115. Ibid. 116. Ibid. 117. Die Brücke (July–August 1965), 7–8. ‘Dr Augustin: Kann “beateln” Sünde sein?’. 118. Ibid. 119. Ibid. 120. Die Brücke (November–December 1965), 7. ‘Begegnung mit einer Liverpooler’. 121. Ibid. 122. Ibid. 123. Ibid. 124. Ibid. 125. A collection of class photos of Danish-minority graduates from DuborgSkolen are available at http://skolehistorisk-samling.dk/fotos/ Studenter-billeder/ (website accessed 28 July 2016). 126. A collection of class photos of German-minority graduates from the secondary school in Aabenraa are available online at http://www.deutschesgym.dk/tysksider/bundmenu/galerie/19621969.html (website accessed 28 July 2016). 127. FSS-Nyt (March–April 1967/8), 11–4. ‘Harke Bahnsen: Mode for mænd’. 128. Ibid.

Bibliography Adriansen, Inge. ‘Der Knivsberg – deutsche Versammlungsstätte, nationales Monument, Ehrenhain und Jugendhof’. Grenzfriedenshefte 2 (1990): 143–152. Andresen, Hans-Wilhelm. ‘Knivsberg als “Botschaft” im Grenzland: ein Porträt der Jugend- und Erwachsenenbildungsstätte’. Schleswig-Holstein 1995, no. 1–2 (1995): 44–46. Applegate, Celia and Pamela Maxine Potter. Music and German National Identity. Chicago, IL; London: University of Chicago Press, 2002. Biddle, Ian D. and Vanessa Knights. Music, National Identity, and the Politics of Location: Between the Global and the Local. Ashgate Popular and Folk Music Series. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007. Carstensen, Peter. ‘Rock ‘n’ Roll-Club Flying Saucers Flensburg e.V. Vom Modetanz zum Leistungssport’. In Neue Töne – Aus 50 Jahren populärer Musik in Flensburg, edited by Reinhard C. Böhle and Broder Schwensen, 75–88. Flensburg: Gesellschaft für Flensburger Stadtgeschichte, 2007. Dussel, Konrad. ‘The Triumph of English-language Pop Music: West German Radio Programming’. In Between Marx and Coca-Cola: Youth Cultures in Changing European Societies, 1960–1980, edited by Axel Schildt and Detlef Siegfried, 127–45. New York; Oxford: Berghan Books, 2006. Schleswig-Holsteinischen Heimatbund. Liederbuch für Schleswig-Holstein, Wolfenbüttel und Zürich: Mösleler Verlag, 1970.

Young People Enjoying Life • 175

Hansen, Jørn. ‘Knivsberg: Den tysksindede befolknings Fest- og Turnplads i Sønderjylland ca. 1920–1945’. Idrætshistorisk årbog 15, (1999): 71–87. Hassan, David. ‘A People Apart: Soccer, Identity and Irish Nationalists in Northern Ireland’. Soccer & Society 3, no. 3 (2002): 65–83. Jacobsen, Nina. ‘Tysk nazistisk ungdomsarbejde i Nordslesvig 1933–1945: Deutsche Jungenschaft Nordschleswig, Deutsche Mädchenschaft Nordschleswig’. Sønderjyske Årbøger, (1996): 195–222. Kalies, Christoph. ‘“Die zahllosen Pettiköter wippen” Der Rock ‘n’ Roll und die tanzwütigen Teenager der Nachkriegszeit’. In Neue Töne – Aus 50 Jahren populärer Musik in Flensburg, edited by Reinhard C. Böhle and Broder Schwensen, 31–74. Flensburg: Gesellschaft für Flensburger Stadtgeschichte e.V., 2007. Kelly, Barbara L. French Music, Culture and National Identity, 1870–1939. Eastman Studies in Music. Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press, 2008. Klimke, Martin and Joachim Scharloth. eds. 1968 in Europe: A History of Protest and Activism, 1956–1977. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Lorenzen, Klaus and Broder Schwensen. ‘Früher Jazz in Flensburg’. In Neue Töne – Aus 50 Jahren populärer Musik in Flensburg, edited by Reinhard C. Böhle and Broder Schwensen, 11–30. Flensburg: Gesellschaft für Flensburger Stadtgeschichte e.V., 2007. Matthiessen, Wolfgang. Twist & Shout: Flensburger Beatszene der Jahre 1962 bis 1972. Flensburg: Gesellschaft für Flensburger Stadtgeschichte e.V., 2013. Morra, Irene. Britishness, Popular Music, and National Identity: The Making of Modern Britain. Routledge Studies in Popular Music. Vol. 2. New York: Routledge, 2014. Maase, Kaspar. ‘Establishing Cultural Democracy: Youth, “Americanisation”, and the Irresistible Rise of of Popular Culture’. In The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949–1968, edited by Hanna Schissler, 428–50. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Mairead, Nic Craith. Plural Identities, Singular Narratives: The Case of Northern Ireland. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2002. Oeding, Stephanie. ‘Beat und Rock in Flensburg 1960–1980’. In Neue Töne – Aus 50 Jahren populärer Musik in Flensburg, edited by Reinhard C. Böhle and Broder Schwensen, 89–112. Flensburg: Gesellschaft für Flensburger Stadtgeschichte e.V., 2007. Passerini, Luisa. ‘Youth as a Metaphor for Social Change in Fascist Italy and America in the 1950s’. In A History of Young People in the West, edited by Giovanni Levi and Jean-Claude Schmitt, 283–303. Cambridge, MA; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997. Pedersen, Karen Margrethe. Dansk sprog i Sydslesvig: det danske sprogs status inden for det danske mindretal i Sydslesvig. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2000. ———. ‘Sprog og identitet i grænseregionen’. In Grænseregionsforskning 1976–2001, edited by Susanne Bygvrå et al., 221–40. Aabenraa: Institut for grænseregionsforskning, 2001.

176  •  Beyond the Border

Poiger, Uta G. Jazz, Rock, and Rebels: Cold-War Politics and American Culture in a Divided Germany. Berkeley, Calif.; London: University of California Press, 2000. Schildt, Axel and Detlef Siegfried. Between Marx and Coca-Cola: Youth Cultures in Changing European Societies, 1960–1980. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. Schleswig-Holsteinischen Heimatbund, Liederbuch für Schleswig-Holstein (Wolfenbüttel und Zürich: Mösleler Verlag, 1970. Siegfried, Detlef. ‘“Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?” Voices of Conflict and Consensus between Generations in 1960s West Germany’. Journal of Contemporary History 40, no. 4 (2005): 727–44. Sönnichsen, Peter Jessen. ‘Das Knivsbergfest: fast 100 Jahre jung’. SchleswigHolstein no. 9 (1990): 9–13. Washabaugh, William. Flamenco Music and National Identity in Spain. Farnham, Surrey; Burlington, V.T.: Ashgate, 2012.

O6 But Who Are We …?

Independent Young Voices on Kin–State Relations and Perceptions of the Meanings of Belonging to a National Minority, c. 1965–70

By the mid 1960s, some youths were not like young people used to be. New interests for young people had emerged from spheres beyond the border region, a number of which were related to international popular culture, to new music, new fashion, and to a new way of being together. Young people wanted a space of their own where new rules and practices applied; they wanted to take control of they own activities, although that control was not always so easily assured. By rejecting folk dancing and waltzes at a school party, for example, and instead favouring jazz and beat music, they brought into the minority spheres of the Danish–German borderlands a set of interests that were taken to be of an international nature and thus non-subjectable to national division. At the same time, nationally divided activities such as sport were and remained popular. The older generation and the established institutions that worked with young people, for example SdU and Jugendverband, were forced into a difficult balancing act. While sometimes allowing young people their own space, at other times they regretted the development publicly. Indeed, neither minority youths nor minority establishments were two homogenous camps in permanent opposition to one-another. In that sense the minority spheres in the Danish–German borderlands were not completely unique or set apart from the rest of Denmark and West Germany. Focusing on young people may include a risk of perceiving

178  •  Beyond the Border

the surrounding society as static and resistant to change. But even though some young people at the time may well have shared this view, this was not always the case. In different ways, both Denmark and West Germany both countries where substantial changes had taken place since 1945. In several publications, historian Thomas Ekman Jørgensen has examined national characteristics of the ‘long 1960s’ in Denmark as well as placing the Danish experiences in a wider European context.1 One of Jørgensen’s main arguments concerns the political situation in Denmark; he argues that due to the ‘hegemonic position of the social democrats … being leftist was perfectly normal in mainstream society’.2 Jørgensen and Steven L.B. Jensen argue elsewhere that ‘the Danish society was different from Adenauer’s West Germany and De Gaulle’s France [because] since 1945 large social reforms had created a social democratic society where the state provided the framework for the free individual and economic development’.3 According to Jørgensen and Jensen, this meant that what happened in the 1960s was ‘not a rebellion against a stagnated society, but only a rebellion against the parts of society that had not followed the largely contented to processes of modernisation’.4 Jørgensen argues that ‘the breakdown of social hierarchies was stronger in Scandinavia than perhaps anywhere in continental Europe’.5 He explains this with the fact that mainstream society was itself the driver of change – for example in education, where ‘traditional values such as obedience, discipline, and hierarchies yielded to self-fulfilment, training in critical thought as well as active participation’.6 According to Jørgensen, the language of protest movements was also adopted in mainstream politics.7 Finally, Jørgensen argues that the period was characterised by what he calls an ‘individualisation of politics’.8 He argues that, in particular, young people engaged themselves with political activities that transgressed traditional political and class divisions and were aimed at single problems and issues.9 In West Germany, too, the generational split was not allencompassing. Historian Detlef Siegfried has examined the relationship between the younger and older generations in 1960s West Germany independently and, according to Siegfried, a contradiction exists in that the young people who benefitted most from societal changes were also those who opposed society the most, these young people belonging to the elites of society.10 Siegfried also points to the puzzle that – in the views of contemporaries – generational conflict was one of the most significant phenomena of the 1960s but that – in the views of scholars – generational consensus was more the norm.11 Siegfried concludes

But Who Are We …? • 179

that ‘the assumption that there was generational consensus would be as false as the claim that generational conflict was all-pervading. A mixture of both elements made up the dynamic’.12 Siegfried shows, for example, that young people often had a good relationship with their parents but a troubled one with wider society. Therefore, according to Siegfried, ‘it is important to distinguish between intergenerational differences within the family and within society at large’.13 Siegfried and Jørgensen’s points resonate with the experiences of young minorities in the Danish–German borderlands. But the issues on which minority youths established their own opinions, sometimes sparking opposition from the older generation, was unique to the borderland setting. The question of what the essences of the two groups’ national belonging were, and what the perceptions of – and relationships with – the kin-states should be really surfaced in the second half of the 1960s. In South Schleswig, young people began to challenge the perception of Denmark as the ideal country and the practice of moving to Denmark to study and returning to South Schleswig. In North Schleswig, the German minority did not idealise West Germany in the same way as the Danish minority did Denmark. Rather, it focused more on advocating a specific German-minority lifestyle in Denmark, a position which, in turn, young people began to discuss openly. The ways in which young people discussed and perceived these questions publicly, had changed significantly by the late 1960s too. Expectations on and of young people were not easily combined, and the result was the emergence of a generational divide. The interesting element was, of course, that young people debated issues which, in nationally homogenous places, were never relevant in the same way. The ways in which these questions were debated, however, showed that even though the questions themselves perhaps were unique to Schleswig, the nature of the debate resonated with those taking place elsewhere.

Two Essential Questions: Whether to Return to South Schleswig and Why? Since there was no access to higher education beyond secondary level within the Danish-minority sphere in South Schleswig, young people travelling to Denmark for educational purposes was common. The Danish minority’s relationship with young people leaving for Denmark was complex, sometimes even conflicting. On the one

180  •  Beyond the Border

hand, the minority idolised Denmark and encouraged young people to spend time there in order to become more familiar with Danish language and culture; it was also common, for example, for Danishminority children to spend time over the summer with host families in Denmark.14 On the other hand, the young people who left for Denmark to study were also expected to return to South Schleswig to settle more permanently. Although the minority described the question of young people leaving and (not) returning as one of the most important issues in South Schleswig, they discussed the issue throughout the 1960s with no substantial variation. In essence, the movement of young people to Denmark was simultaneously perceived as an opportunity and a threat for the minority. Early examples of the nature of this dilemma could be drawn from Flensborg Avis’ coverage of an open meeting about the issue in 1960.15 According Flensborg Avis, ‘so many people wanted to participate that there was no room in the library’s grand hall’.16 Flensborg Avis summarised the different arguments. Hermann Tychsen, chairman of SSF, stated that ‘far too many students stay[ed] in Denmark and [he] [could] not see this as anything else but betrayal’;17 Tychsen considered possible explanations for not returning, such as marriage, employment opportunities and a higher salary, to be ‘nothing but embarrassing excuses’.18 Unmistakably, Tychsen’s views were connected to the national question. He was quoted: ‘one thing [was] certain. For every single one leaving, the goal becomes harder to achieve. Still, we neither can nor wish to force them’.19 Another speaker at the meeting, Pastor Parmann, argued along similar lines. According to him ‘the problem [was] so big that it [had] to be seen as a crisis’.20 He compared the national consciousness of young people to faith, and asked: Do the same circumstances apply to Danish-ness as to the church? From the outside, we have two stable and solid organisations, but do we have spiritual emptiness and stagnation, or a living reality on the inside?

He continued: What is it we want with Danish-ness in South Schleswig? Do we, first and foremost, want to move the border? Do we want to have the refugees removed? Do we want to separate South Schleswig from Holstein? Or do we want to create an authentically Danish way of living in South Schleswig?21

The staunch positions presented at the meeting in Flensburg aside, other representatives of the older generation perceived the dilemma differently. In 1960, Grænsen wrote that three senior minority Danes,

But Who Are We …?  •  181

A. Svensson, school director Bernhard Hansen and Dr Vilhelm la Cour had ‘spoken harshly’ about young people and described their staying in Denmark as an ‘escape’ from South Schleswig. In opposition to the three, however, Flemming Møller, a Danish priest in South Schleswig, argued that young people should just focus on being happy doing what they did in the place they happened to be.22 The editor of Grænsen, Bent A. Koch, positioned himself on the side of the Flemming Møller. In his article ‘the serfdom of conscience – should South Schleswig Danish youth always return home?’ Koch called it ‘inhumane’ to demand that young people ‘should sacrifice their aspirations for the sake of the national cause and assume a profession they would forever consider a bitter task’.23 Koch argued that compromising young people’s right to decide their own future was incompatible with the personal freedom that ‘Danish-ness claimed to encompass’.24 He also added a quotation from one of the Danish minority’s most influential individuals, Jacob Kronika, who had said: We would never dream of forcing anyone in any way. We consider the right to decide for oneself to be a primary principle of our human and national existence. Of course, this right applies to the individual as well who can choose whether to leave or to stay. The question facing us, the older generation, must be: are we able to pass on to young people the joy of living in our national community; can we make them realise that in living a Danish life in South Schleswig, something spiritual enriches the soul and therefore keeps you here?25

Svensson, however, reacted in Flensborg Avis to Koch’s article in Grænsen. He objected to the perception that expecting young people to return to South Schleswig was ‘inhumane’. Svensson believed the debate had been diverted, and that the question was not about being humane or inhumane but about ‘keeping a promise’.26 Svensson warned not to ‘mistake need for comfort’. 27 In his view, young people acted spoilt if they did not accept that the Danish state provided the grants only on certain conditions.28 Koch, however, maintained his objection to ‘the subordination of humane thinking to national causes’ considering it ‘unreasonable and immoral’ to demand that seventeenor eighteen-year-olds should feel obliged to return. Koch argued that ‘things happen to young people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five’.29 Two issues were at stake in the disagreement between Svensson and Koch. One was the relevance of the old national cause; the other was the perception of the position of young people in society. The idea behind encouraging young people to study in Denmark and have them return

182  •  Beyond the Border

afterwards to work for the national cause in South Schleswig, was linked to the aspirations of strengthening the minority’s position so that, one day, the border could be redrawn. As this aspiration proved ever more unrealistic, the urgency of young people’s return to South Schleswig was questioned. Furthermore, Koch’s view also advocated more generally that young people should be allowed to decide their own futures regardless. In the view of Koch and others like him, young people should not be kept from the opportunities open to them in the 1960s on the basis of a cause that was no longer relevant. The position of Flensborg Avis on the matter was a conservative one. In 1962, Harald Jørgensen, a Danish-minded archivist from North Schleswig, argued in the newspaper that ‘one of the biggest questions [would] be whether the young people, who [had] attended Danish schools [would] stay down there or leave.30 If young people left, he argued, ‘the Danish movement will have no future’.31 Overall, Jørgensen’s view on Danish-minority youth was familiar. He argued: These are people who have had layers of German-ness removed from them, and rediscovered their original Danish roots. But it is the Danish youth in South Schleswig that must decide whether it wants to betray us by leaving. This is the most important question in South Schleswig today.32

In 1963, Flensborg Avis returned to the topic again, this time from a different angle. On its front page, the paper printed an anonymous letter to Jacob Kronika; a young man wrote to Kronika that he had ‘ended up in Denmark … but [that he] would like to return to South Schleswig because life in the border region appeal[ed] to [him]’.33 The young man suggested that the minority should organise assistance for the young people considering moving back, in relation to finding a job or starting a business in South Schleswig. He added that his suggestions might seem ‘naïve and unrealistic’ but he hoped that they could ‘further our common goal’.34 Printing this letter on the front page of the paper, it seems evident that Kronika and Flensborg Avis appreciated the young man’s views. Kronika was indeed dedicated to the cause of ensuring that young people returned to South Schleswig. In 1967, he repeated more or less his statement from 1960. In a large interview on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, he said to Flensborg Avis: Youth is essential for a minority. My opinion … is that far too many of our best educated young people leave. Of course we cannot force them to stay, but there must be something wrong … It is a fact that we cannot make it attractive enough for young people to stay in the border region.

But Who Are We …?  •  183

And we have to ask ourselves, what is the value of the ‘Danish offer’? Far too many young people leave without thinking twice. And I think we are ignoring this very serious fact.35

Kronika believed that ‘Danish daily life’ should be made attractive for young people. He claimed to be hurt when he met Danish-minority youths, living outside South Schleswig, who said they had no intention of returning. According to Kronika, young people were crucial for the Danish cause and, in essence, for maintaining the clear distinctions between Germans and Danes. When asked in the interview whether such distinctions were still necessary, Kronika replied: ‘Of course! Otherwise one is double-minded or “woolly” and that is all wrong. Being double-minded means to be spiritually divided, [and] not having any personal convictions’.36 Unfortunately, the young people who did not return have left behind few sources to shed light on what influenced their decisions. However, oral history interviews with three minority Danes who did not return to South Schleswig, suggest that their decisions were based more choosing to stay (or to move on), than on not to return. One woman, born in 1948, who studied in Copenhagen and stayed there, said in 2014: After getting the exam from Duborg-Skolen – which was a privilege – it was expected that one went somewhere to study because you could not do that in South Schleswig. The atmosphere was kind of: ‘a real South Schleswiger returns!’ One leaves to get an education, and then returns to use it. And some did return – also in my generation. And some did not. I think that is quite natural …37

A man, born 1946, who studied architecture in Copenhagen and moved from there to Berlin in 1968 to work, and only returned to Flensburg later in life, said in 2016: Well, I finished in 1968, which was a very uncertain time, with the student revolts and everything … It only really hit us, when we had completed our studies but I became very conscious of what was going on in Berlin … I was absolutely bilingual, remember, and I had always paid attention to what happened in Germany and with German architecture … But, the Danish [part of me] I guess became secondary, because I worked in a studio together with only Germans.38

Finally, a man born 1953, who went to Aarhus to study in the early 1970s, said in 2014: After three years in Aarhus, so many things happened and everything went so well with work that I decided to drop out of university … and

184  •  Beyond the Border

at the same time, because everything went so well, I decided that I did not want to return to Germany and that I wanted to become a Danish citizen.39

To other young people, however, it seems that contemplating not returning could also be a choice, related, in fact, to a rejection of what Kronika hoped would attract young people. In 1970, Flensborg Avis recited an interview from Berlingske Tidende, a Copenhagenbased newspaper, with five young Danish South Schleswigers living and studying in the Danish capital. The article noted that ‘the five young South Schleswigers disagreed about a lot of things … but they all agreed that they did not feel any obligation to return to South Schleswig’.40 By contrast, the young people said that if they were asked to return to South Schleswig, only in order to ‘strengthen the cause, there [was] no need for continuing South Schleswig’.41 One young man said that ‘if one move[d] to South Schleswig to work, it [was] indirectly expected that one [did] a whole lot for the cause in one’s spare time’.42 Another young man added that ‘many of his peers had returned to South Schleswig because they felt they had to, but that in most cases they [had] returned to Denmark simply because it was impossible to get through with new ideas’.43 A third student said that ‘it [was] necessary to have a debate about the minority’s continued existence’ and that it could not continue for ‘historical reasons’ only.44 To that another student asked: ‘how do you want to start a debate when the most important people in South Schleswig do not want to have one? They have refused several times – I think we are out of touch.45 Only one young man disagreed. He said: I think that the South Schleswigers – or Danes – who live in Denmark but have something to criticise about the system in South Schleswig should move there and work to improve it. I will go back as soon as I finish my education. Not because I have a guilty conscience but because I enjoy being occupied with the issues.46

Evidently, some young people returned to South Schleswig, while others stayed in Denmark. The reasons for not returning could be multifaceted, albeit one paradox existed: the interview with the youths in Berlingske Tidende suggested that some of them did not return to South Schleswig for the same reasons which Jacob Kronika hoped would attract young people; Danish-minority youths began to question the appeal of ‘the Danish offer’ in South Schleswig. Back in South Schleswig, the discussions of what being Danish minority actually meant loomed large in the mid 1960s. Alongside young people’s changing perceptions of themselves as Danish-minority

But Who Are We …?  •  185

youths, the manifestations of young people’s perceptions of Denmark changed too. However much the minority no longer considered Germans to be the enemies or threats to Danish-ness, favouring the maintenance of separate Danish and German spheres continued, as exemplified by Kronika’s statement from 1970. But as shown already in the previous chapters, the arguments for national separation were already severely challenged, as a consequence of Denmark and West Germany’s mutual enemy in Russia, the ideas of Europe, and, in particular, mutual interests related to new interests and leisure. By the late 1960s, the growing acceptance of the improved relationship with the majority was also related to an even firmer rejection of the border struggle and even a questioning of Denmark as the ideal country. In 1964, Vulkanen raised the question of minority–majority interaction again for the first time since such connections were objected to in the late 1950s.47 Raising the question of why contact with students from the German secondary schools was so minimal, one student argued why separation was unfortunate: Someday we will have to work together and sit on the same boards and in the same commissions … I think it cannot hurt that we know each other; it will inspire and further our working together.48

In 1965, the debate resurfaced when a group of students in Year 8 discussed why students from the German secondary schools were not permitted to participate in Duborg-Skolen’s activities. The students raised the question with the school leadership, and student Karen Jacobsen wrote in Vulkanen that Duborg-Skolen’s answer was ‘a categorical no because the mutual language in that case would be German, meaning that guests from North Schleswig would leave with a ‘strange perception of Duborg-Skolen’s Danish-ness’.49 Jacobsen commented: We just so happen to be Danes in a German town, and if people from Denmark cannot comprehend that situations such as the above can occur without immediately thinking that our Danish-ness is in a poor state, it is their own problem. We are not obliged to appear particularly Danish or change our ways of being only in order to satisfy a group of students’ narrow-minded conceptualisation of what a minority should be like.50

Opposing the decision of the school, Jacobsen actually addressed three controversial issues. First, the language paradox that had always haunted both minorities: the fact that most who considered themselves part of the minorities, in fact, spoke the language of the majority as their first language. Second, she criticised Danes from Denmark, claiming that Danes could be narrow-minded, which was controversial. Third,

186  •  Beyond the Border

she accused the school of hypocrisy by asking whether ‘openness [was] not something typically Danish’.51 Not all students at Duborg-Skolen, however, agreed with Jacobsen. The following issue of Vulkanen contained two reactions to her statements. Both opposed her views, albeit their style of criticism varied. Under the headline ‘A fantast or the theoretical girl?’52 the first opponent accused Jacobsen of being unable to see the greater picture. He wrote: ‘Karen: Stay away from the deep water, as one thing is reading a map of the ocean, another is to sail a ship. If one cannot comprehend a situation entirely, one should refrain from arguing’.53 The second reaction to Jacobsen’s article was less harsh although its author still disagreed. The student argued that the people of the Danish minority were Danes and that they were – and should be – different from Germans.54 But the debate continued in Vulkanen. In May 1966, the school paper contained a survey with seventeen questions related to what being part of the Danish minority meant. The questions included: ‘Should we interact more with German students?’, ‘Can we demand that German students who participate in our events are able to understand Danish?’, ‘Do you feel Danish?’ and ‘Should the hope for reunification with Denmark be part of what determines our work?’55 The results of the survey appeared in the December 1966 issue. They showed that a small majority of students favoured more interaction with the German students and that it could not be expected that they could understand Danish. A large majority (twenty-six) considered themselves to be Danish, but only half (sixteen) thought that the hope for reunification with Denmark should characterise the minority’s work.56 The survey, of course, was not statistically valid and nor was it possible to judge whether it was representative; only thirty students (150 issues of Vulkanen were printed) completed it. The survey’s significance, however, was more that young people at Duborg-Skolen began to discuss these issues so bluntly, and that they were now allowed to do so in the school paper. At the same time, a similar debate took place in Treklangen. Detlef Lorenzen, for example, wrote in 1966 that even though everything in Denmark was always described as being better than in Germany, the reality was different sometimes.57 He mentioned, for example, that in West Germany, the wives of army recruits received a subsidy and that people receiving poor relief were not disenfranchised.58 He warned of the consequences of ‘painting a black and white picture’ because: In particular for young people it could be a lifelong disappointment, when the idealised picture of Denmark and our fellow countrymen

But Who Are We …?  •  187

north of the border proves not to match reality … we now have the opportunity to take the best from both Danish and German ideas.59

The small group of Danish-minority youths who studied outside Schleswig (mainly in Copenhagen) participated actively in this debate too. The students had frequently debated minority questions before, but in 1965 they began to question the validity of traditional Danishminority views in more controversial ways than that of considering the reunification goal unrealistic. Kay Einfeldt, for example, wrote in FSS-Nyt that he would not recommend voting for SSW, the Danishminority party, for the Federal elections, as the party had almost no chance of winning a seat in the parliament in Bonn. He argued: As a West German citizen, one has the right to vote for one party in the federal elections and for another party in local elections … It is narrowminded to idolise all that is Danish and condemn all that is German.60

Another student, Jens Ingwersen, presented controversial views too. Reacting to a statement made by minority politician, Karl Otto Meyer, who presented ‘Danish-ness [as] an offer to the whole population of South Schleswig’, Ingwersen pointed to what he saw as two incompatible Danish conventional wisdoms: first, that the Danes had the right to continuously recruit German-minded South Schleswigers to the minority, perpetuating the argument that, in reality, they were Danes and not Germans; second, that human equality was believed to be a Danish special trait. He wrote: But what is the goal with such an offer? Is it, as it was written in SHZ [Danish-minded South Schleswig paper] to ‘convince the German population that it would feel more at home with Danish than German culture? I cannot see this as anything else other than a [Danish] manifestation of feeling nationally and culturally superior, similar to what we always criticise as being German … As long as we, in practice, perceive Danish culture to be superior but, officially, talk about the equality of cultures, all what we do in the name of the minority will seem untrustworthy.61

Rather than considering it ‘an offer’ Jens Ingwersen labelled the minority’s recruitment effort ‘missionary work’. He spoke out against it directly, saying that ‘neither Denmark nor the minority should carry out missionary work in South Schleswig’.62 In 1966, Lothar Köster presented another example that he believed showed that the Danes were actually guilty of the wrongdoings of which they accused the Germans. Köster wrote that young, Danishminority men entering the West German army as recruits expected to find ‘hyper nationalised and tensed masses, eager to conquer and

188  •  Beyond the Border

to erase the character of the individual’.63 Köster claimed, however, that the young Danish-minded men would discover that the ‘national element’ was much more apparent in their own homes and that ‘one [was] almost shocked to find out that he did not need to hide his national and political positions and convictions in the German army’.64 Furthermore, he wrote that ‘one should remember that the German soldier will defend not only West Germany but also Jutland’. He finished, ‘PS: I have never been the victim of brainwashing’.65 Ingwersen’s and Köster’s criticisms of Denmark and the Danish minority were particularly unique because they included attention to positive aspects of West Germany. Some Danish-minority youths also began to question whether Denmark and the Danes even still took an interest in South Schleswig issues. In 1967, a young man, Holger Hinz, wrote in Treklangen about his experiences of arriving at a college, Askov Højskole, in Denmark. Hinz wrote that, after unpacking his things, he pinned a Danish flag to the wall in his shared dorm room, where his Danish-majority roommate also mounted a poster of Lenin. The roommate questioned Hinz about

Figure 6.1 Danish-minority FSS students, late 1960s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

But Who Are We …?  •  189

the flag, and – according to the article – he asked why Hinz liked the Danish flag when he was ‘not really Danish’.66 Hinz also wrote that he was called ‘the German’ by the other students and that – because of his German citizenship – they did not accept him as a ‘real Dane’. Hinz expressed frustration with his experiences and wrote about his Danish peers that ‘they should either learn about the problem [South Schleswig] or they should keep their mouths shut!’67 The significance of the incident was not so much what actually happened at Askov Højskole; it was again – like in the case of Vulkanen – that Treklangen printed this particular version of the story. Treklangen remained the minority’s official and largest publication for young people and it had always been much less controversial and traditionally positioned than, for example, Front og Bro or FSS-Nyt. The fact that the publication dared to take a critical position on Denmark and Danes gave credence to the fact that the relationship between the Danish-minority youth and Denmark was changing. Other examples of Treklangen’s new position included the printing of an article in February 1968 that was critical of Denmark’s role in Greenland. The article discussed the difficulty of explaining Denmark’s activities in Greenland when, at the same time, Denmark condemned Portuguese colonialism in Africa. On the conditions in the border region the article argued that: ‘the meeting of different cultures can be very fruitful for both cultures, that is, if one does not, as a principle, assume that ‘we are right, we have the best culture, and we have history on our side’.68 In 1968, Treklangen even featured an article by Jens Ingwersen from FSS. Ingwersen wrote about the future, arguing that the minority should not be discouraged by the Denmark’s lack of interest in South Schleswig but rather ‘accept a place in the world that demanded more than the singing of sentimental and patriotic songs’.69 Ingwersen argued that: We have enough to be proud of: our children grow up in two cultures, know about two ways of life, speak two languages and if we offer them their own platform, they will continue our work because it is meaningful to them. But if we raise them to feel nationally inferior, because all Danish is good and all German and South Schleswigian is bad, we should not complain that they turn away from us … we must work for developing our region and not be too occupied by romanticising Denmark as it is done in Flensborg Avis.70

Some representatives of the older generation reacted strongly against young people’s critique of the minority and Denmark. Furthermore, they continued to manifest completely opposite views than the ones of young people discussed above. In December 1965, FSS-Nyt contained

190 • Beyond the Border

an interview with school headmaster, Nicolai Büchert, whose opinions, admittedly, represented probably the most reactionary positions within the Danish minority. The interview covered topics such as the reunification goal, Danish-minority youth and the German majority in Schleswig. Büchert argued that aiming to have the border changed was as relevant as ever. He admitted that the Danish youth within FSS perhaps did not share these ideas, but he claimed that ‘lots of other youths outside FSS, still [held] onto the idea of reunification’.71 He argued: Let me say this immediately. To me, the German people only exist south of the Eider River. Those who call themselves Germans up here, are in reality Danes, who perhaps do not know they are Danes or they do not want to admit that they are … It may be that you young people in FSS do not even believe that South Jutland [North and South Schleswig] was stolen from Denmark by the Germans and Austrians in 1864 … but as long as they have not returned the stolen goods, they will have to accept that I call them thieves and robbers … The injustices and rape committed against our region must be solved first. Afterwards we may be able to work together peacefully.72

Büchert’s claim that FSS did not represent the position of Danish youth in South Schleswig was probably accurate to an extent. Going back to the survey in Vulkanen, 50 percent had answered that they still considered reunification to be a relevant ambition. On the other hand – and as shown already from various perspectives – other youths had spoken out clearly against reunification. Büchert’s position, however, that the Germans were thieves and robbers, increasingly became a marginalised one in all circles of the Danish minority. The debate did not only take place in FSS-Nyt, Treklangen and Vulkanen. Different opinions were also exchanged on the debate pages in Flensborg Avis. The priest, Flemming Møller – who had actually defended young people’s choice of not returning to South Schleswig from Denmark – argued, for example, that the young and the old generations understood ‘the national question’ differently.73 Møller’s own view on this was that a national identity could not be compared with a political one: national identity, he argued, was a question of faith, and the national struggle a question of justice.74 Some weeks later, Flemming Møller’s view was opposed to by Thorbjørn Heick, who rejected the notion of faith and argued that the young generation did not see ‘the victory of Danish-ness’ as something natural or self-evident.75 The question of whether or not the minority faced ‘an identity crisis’ was also raised in 1966. The Danish-minded North Schleswiger

But Who Are We …? • 191

Frederik Rudbeck wrote that the German minority in North Schleswig faced a similar situation, and that Günter Weitling had attempted to start a debate which was ‘shut down by Hans Schmidt-Oxbüll’.76 Rudbeck argued it was necessary with a debate about ‘the goals of the Danish minority’ too. He asked: ‘What is it one wants? Does one still hope for reunification?’77 Flensborg Avis published a number of articles, advocating holding on to the goal of reunification. Siegfried Andresen, for example, wrote that ‘there [was] a growing group of people who still favour[ed] what had been the goal for a number of years: a reunification with Denmark’.78 Another contributor, W.A. Andresen echoed that position, and the opinions of Nicolai Büchert: The minority has to liberate itself from the degrading circumstance that the majority of the population in South Schleswig is kept in the dark when it comes to their real national identity and the history of their region… It is illusionary to think that North Schleswig was won [in 1920] with [the Danish] songbook and coffee gatherings … stronger measures are needed.79

The former principal of Duborg-Skolen, Johannes Hoffmeyer, however, positioned himself a little differently. He argued that a small group of ‘young rebels’ reacted against what he called ‘Danish romanticism’.80 Hoffmeyer asked: ‘On this basis, would it not be wise, realistic, and loyal to the truth to seize having this debate and honestly face the realities instead? The romanticising aspect of our national character has led to enough misfortune’.81 Hoffmeyer’s position showed that – like the views of young people – the opinions within the older generation were not always uniform. While the debate in Flensborg Avis was mostly about the border question, reunification and how to engage young people in such questions, it seems the young people who participated most actively in identity discussions had moved beyond that by the late 1960s. In 1967, four young people participated in a debate in Husby, arguing at the meeting that Danish-minority youths were actually 50 percent Danish and 50 percent German. Büchert wrote again in Flensborg Avis: ‘50 percent German and 50 percent Danish! To me that is complete nonsense. Do young people really think that they can win back South Schleswig with this “fifty-fifty” attitude?’82 These young people, however, were not interested in discussing winning back South Schleswig; and it seems that some of them were tired of the unwillingness of the older generation to discuss identity issues. At least in the case of Jens Ingwersen, one of the most active contributors to the debate, a difference in his reactions to critique could

192 • Beyond the Border

be detected from 1965 onwards. In 1965, Ingwersen wrote in FSS-Nyt that he acknowledged the criticism coming from the older generation. He elaborated: Those who, for so many years, have lived under pressure of the Germans must wonder why their children refuse to engage themselves in a similar way to how they did in their own youth. But it is beyond any doubt that only very few of us young people experience feelings of national sentiment when we hear the older generation talk about Prussia-mentality as something opposite to ‘Mother Denmark’ … but we young people are not German-minded just because we refuse to talk about the Germans as ‘thieves and robbers’ … I am sorry if this makes the older Generation feel like we do not appreciate them.83

In 1966, Jens Ingwersen wrote again in FSS-Nyt that the minority should recognise how young people’s lack of interest was linked to the fact that all debate initiated by young people was banned. He added that it was ‘wishful thinking to believe that public readings of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tales would excite young people.84 Furthermore, he claimed that when a younger person was elected to represent the minority party in a local constituency, it led to ‘loud protest because the candidate [was] inexperienced’.85 Ingwersen asked: ‘How is it possible at the same time to complain about young people’s lack of interest?’86 In 1967, Ingwersen’s position was even less compromising when he wrote to Büchert in Flensborg Avis, in connection with the statement about being 50 percent Danish and 50 percent German. Ingwersen did not comment with same understanding he had shown in 1965, but wrote that it was ‘outright “un-Danish” to be afraid of debating’.87 Although not all Danish-minority youths held the same views, clear distinctions between some young people and some of the older generations had started to emerge by the late 1960s. Representative or not, this opposition dominated the nature of the debate. The disagreements were clearly related to the traditional focus on reunification with Denmark and the isolation from the majority. Furthermore, young people no longer felt obliged to dedicate their lives to ‘the South Schleswig Question’, and they did not feel obliged to return from Denmark to South Schleswig. At the same time, they began to reject the idolisation of Denmark and the condemnation of Germany. What some young people found particularly frustrating however, was the unwillingness of the older generations to discuss these issues with them. What Kronika hoped would attract young people actually discouraged them. On top of that, a real generational conflict over what being Danish meant was emerging. The older generation thought that questioning traditional values was dangerous

But Who Are We …?  •  193

for Danish-ness in South Schleswig; but the younger generation believed that refusing to debate was un-Danish behaviour.

The German-Minority Agricultural Ideal and Identity Debates in Die Brücke Although minority youths in the Danish–German border region shared many experiences, fundamental differences also existed between the two groups. The relationship between the German minority and West Germany, for example, differed substantially from the relationship between the Danish minority and Denmark. As argued in Chapter 1, 1945 was a turning point for both minorities: After the war, the previously small and compromised Danish minority grew enormously and assumed its separatist aspirations; all the while, the – until then – larger and stronger German minority abandoned separatism and declared unconditional loyalty to Denmark. This difference determined that German-minority youths in the post-war era never experienced the idolisation of their home state in the same way that the Danishminority youth did. Furthermore, the instability of Germany was important. In 1965, for example, a fifty-year-old German North Schleswiger in Denmark would have lived through four different ‘Germanys’: He or she would have been born in the Second German Empire (1871–1918); seen the rise and fall of the Weimar Republic (1918–33) as well as the Third Reich (1933–45); and would now be faced with the two new ‘Germanys’, DDR and the Federal Republic. Unlike the Danish minority, the German minority did not have a stable state to which it could direct its origin and loyalty. Admittedly, perhaps this mattered less to young people by the mid 1960s. They had grown up as part of a German minority that officially had declared its loyalty to the Danish state but, at the same time, retained an isolationist attitude regarding culture and identity. Instead of directing the same kind of loyalty to West Germany as the Danish minority directed to Denmark, the German minority focused more on surviving as a group and maintaining the status quo. The minority accepted, however reluctantly, that young people did not wish to live in isolation from the Danish majority, but, at the same time, they encouraged young people to stay in the region, advocating the idea of a particular German lifestyle in North Schleswig. Traditionally, a German-minority lifestyle was associated with agriculture. Before the Second World War, the minority was well-represented among landowners in North Schleswig. Some of the minority’s most prominent

194  •  Beyond the Border

individuals, for example Hans Schmidt-Gorsblock, Hans SchmidtWodder and Harro Marquardsen, all came from well-to-do, landowning families. The share of farmland in North Schleswig owned by German-minded farmers changed somewhat after 1945, when the Danish state confiscated land owned by Germans or mortgaged through German banks or credit unions. Nevertheless, the minority continued to idealise the agricultural profession and lifestyle and it encouraged young people to pursue it. During the 1960s, however, the agricultural sector in North Schleswig – and in Denmark – changed. The sector industrialised, and the traditional family-operated farm became less common. In 1959, there were just short of 200,000 independent farms in Denmark,88 out of which almost half were smaller than ten hectares, roughly twenty-four acres.89 By 1969, the total number of farms in Denmark had dropped to less than 150,000.90 The share of smaller farms was less than one-fifth.91 The era of life in the country on a small, family-operated farm slowly came to an end; and instead new, industrial jobs were created in the towns around which whole new suburban neighbourhoods were built. Contemporary commentators were aware of this development and their implications for the two minorities. In 1964, for example, Simon J. From, member of the Danish parliament, wrote in Grænsen that ‘the difficulties of both minorities [were] to keep young people in this region where they [belonged]’ and that ‘everyone [could] see what industry [meant] in terms of keeping young people [in the border region]’.92 A year later, Poul Melgaard wrote – also in Grænsen – that he was optimistic about the economic developments in the border region and that ‘it [had] been a good year but the mechanisation [continued] and the number of people employed in agriculture [dropped]’.93 He added that ‘only insofar it [was] possible to create new jobs, one [could] hope to keep in the region the young people, who [were] moving from agriculture to other jobs in other sectors’.94 The German minority’s agricultural ideal was enduring. Whereas the economic and demographic changes in North Schleswig worked against the minority’s efforts to keep young people employed in agriculture, Die Brücke, for example, still encouraged Germanminority youths to seek a career in farming. In 1964, Peter Rasmussen addressed the fact that agriculture in Denmark was changing in an article entitled: ‘Farmers are becoming a rarity – but that increases your chances and possibilities’.95 Essentially, what others saw as a reason to not become a farmer, Rasmussen used as an argument to do so. He discussed how – due to technological advancements – a ‘fleeing from rural areas’ had taken place, and he stated that the number of people

But Who Are We …? • 195

employed in agriculture had dropped from just over 300,000 in 1939 to 87,000 in 1963.96 Rather than suggesting that this should cause young people to consider other career paths, he argued that they should see it as an opportunity: ‘Our young people in agriculture should take every single opportunity to improve their skills and become optimistic and passionate farmers’.97 In another contribution to the debate about employment in Die Brücke, Hermann Heil did not focus in particular on farming but he advised young people to be aware of employment opportunities in North Schleswig. Heil recommended a bi-annual seminar in Flensburg where young people could meet representatives of different trades as well as other youths from the German side of the border with the same professional interests. Towards the end of the article he also discussed how choosing a profession was difficult and could lead to a string of unforeseen consequences. He argued: One small thing which is not unimportant for us as Germans in North Schleswig should be considered. That is the employment possibilities that exist in our homeland, North Schleswig. One sees time and again that a young person has chosen a profession at random and that he cannot find employment in North Schleswig. He is disappointed.98

Whereas the encouragement was clear, it was also subtle. Hermann Heil and Die Brücke did not articulate the call upon young people as an obligation. Rather than arguing that young people were expected to only seek professions that could lead to employment in North Schleswig, the argument was constructed so that the encouragement was only made in order to prevent young people’s own disappointment – not in order to meet the expectations of the group. The application of using expectation as an influence on young people’s choices would, of course, have varied. Oral history evidence confirms that, in some families, parents had clear ideas about what profession their children should seek. In cases where young people came from family farms, for example, a son was often expected to continue the farm after the retirement of the parents, as explained by a German-minority woman born in 1958: My father was [my grandparents’] only son. He wanted to study, but was not allowed to because he had to continue the farm. That was [my parents’] plan with us too … My brother started some sort of agricultural education and he did not dare to tell my parents that he did not want to be a farmer … but one day he finally told them, thank God … after that my parents sold the farm … times were changing then, and this kind of traditional family farming could not continue any longer.99

196  •  Beyond the Border

The statement suggests that the son of a farmer was expected to continue the family farm, but also that – at least in this case – the general decline of family farming in Denmark influenced the German minority too. The memoir of a former student at the college in Tinglev points in the same direction. Attending the college in 1966-67, the former student stated in 2005: One felt that society was changing and that the things that were right in the past had served their time. In particular the training in agriculture was outdated … I felt that my education was no longer adequate, in particular in comparison with the Danish schools, which offered more.100

The college in Tinglev eventually had to terminate its agricultural training programme in 1968, when only five young men attended it.101 From 1968 onwards, the college changed to focus more on programmes for younger students. Headmaster Paul Koopmann’s conservative worldview was also challenged by changes in society. Immediately before the decision to close down the agricultural programme was made, the college had decided that ‘it was necessary to employ Danishspeaking teachers’.102 Comparing that decision to the language policy of the college in the 1950s, it was clear that a change had taken place. The employment recommendations in Die Brücke also indicated that by the mid 1960s, the German minority had begun to address young

Figure 6.2 The German-minority college in Tinglev. Courtesy Deutsches Museum Nordschleswig.

But Who Are We …? • 197

people differently than before. In comparison to ten years earlier, the minority no longer reminded young people that their choice of profession could damage the minority.103 In March 1967, the entire issue of Die Brücke was dedicated to the topic of education and employment. The assertion of young people’s right to make their own choices was clear. The magazine emphasised, for example, that the purpose was not to ‘give any final answers’. Rather, the editors hoped to ‘offer clarity’ and inspire young people ‘to start considering these questions’.104 The choice of profession, as the article argues, ‘was free and the state and its institutions should refrain from directly trying to influence the professional choices of its citizens’.105 Over the several pages, discussing different possible professions and education opportunities, the issue of expecting young people to stay in North Schleswig is not mentioned until the very end. An interview with Hermann Heil asks if he had a final point to make, and he argued: One issue lies close to my heart: when a young person from our group chooses a profession that carries no chances of employment in North Schleswig, he should think carefully about this and examine all possibilities before heading north or south. Sometimes minor adjustments to his interests can lead to good opportunities for working in North Schleswig. For example, an automotive engineer has no great prospects in North Schleswig but a mechanical engineer has great ones. Within our group we should make efforts to keep our good young people in the region, although I realise how difficult this can be sometimes.106

In the same way that Danish-minority youths were encouraged to return to South Schleswig, German-minority youths were encouraged to stay in North Schleswig. But there was a fundamental difference between how the two minorities projected the future and how they saw the role of young people: in particular, being German minority in North Schleswig was not associated with the same latent hope of a reunification with the kin-state that still existed in South Schleswig. The differences between the two minorities existed alongside many similarities too. In the mid 1960s, the German minority stated clearly that being German minority in Denmark meant working actively for German and Danish peaceful coexistence in the border region. In fact, the official statements of the German school and language association resembled almost exactly what Jens Ingwersen argued in South Schleswig. The mission statement from 1965, for example, highlighted the benefits of being bilingual and familiar with two cultures: The children leaving our schools are at home in both cultures and languages of our border region. This is exactly what enables them to

198  •  Beyond the Border

work for the construction of Europe of the future here in our border region, where two people meet.107

In the statement from 1969, the same argument was made even more explicit: Our work is not carried out in a spirit of close-minded nationalism. On the contrary, we are open to all sides … With this we believe that our or German schools in North Schleswig contribute to a peaceful and friendly coexistence of both people’s in our home region, and eventually they contribute to the construction of a Europe of the future.108

The two statements suggest that Günter Weitling’s opinions from the early 1960s had become official German-minority positions by the late 1960s. It seems that the German minority began to actively embrace and celebrate bilingualism and the rejection of isolation from the majority. But other opinions also existed, for example, the notion that the minority’s belonging to the German nation should not be contested. In debating national belonging, some German-minority youths expressed similar views as their peers in South Schleswig. Moreover, young people faced similar reactions from some of the older generation. The debate took place in Die Brücke between 1965 and 1969, and it showed that in North Schleswig – although the issue was less controversial than in South Schleswig – minority youths also questioned and challenged what it meant to be German minority and what national identity actually was. In 1965, Die Brücke published an article that they described as ‘a ‘hot potato’.109 The article discussed the relationship between minority and kin-state.110 The author was Siegfried Christiansen (by now living in Aarhus, Denmark and conscripted into the Danish Army), the founder of Kreis Junger Schleswiger in Aabenraa, 1961–63. Christiansen asked: How free are we actually? Can we allow ourselves to have our own opinion? We name ourselves a German national group and with this we announce that nationally we belong with Germany. In addition to that we apply the term minority with which we describe our position within the Danish state.111

Christiansen also argued that Germans in North Schleswig previously ‘aimed to honour Germany’ but that now they self-identified as a minority, which was ‘a good thing’. Yet he pointed out that being German and a Danish citizen at the same time presented a paradox. Siegfried Christiansen wanted to discuss two issues: first, to what extent the German minority should engage with and feel responsible for events in Germany, for example, the division of Germany and

But Who Are We …? • 199

issues in East Germany; second, he asked more generally what the character of the minority actually was.112 In the next issue of Die Brücke, Hans Christian Hansen asked similar questions. Hansen’s article is about life in Copenhagen as a German North Schleswiger; it includes reflections on the connections of Germanminority youth to the minority and to Germany. Hansen discussed whether, for example, young North Schleswigers could engage with Danish politics, or whether they should only feel represented by the minority’s own political party, Slesvigsk Parti. Furthermore, he argued that the North Schleswigers living in Copenhagen increasingly asked themselves, why they were Germans at all. He wrote: What does it actually mean? Are we obliged to defend everything that is German, including the things we do not like? Is our sphere of interest automatically limited so that we cannot listen to jazz or The Beatles with a clear conscience but have to force ourselves against our will to sing and dance to folk songs? Can we not liberate ourselves from well-meaning speakers and writers who seem to have a recipe for what as German one does and does not?113

Hansen argued that belonging to the minority should not limit a person’s potential sphere of interest and that there should be a place for everyone ‘who felt German’.114 He still, however, expressed ambiguous feelings towards cultural activities and interests what were not unequivocally classified as being German. In the following issue, Die Brücke printed a reaction from another young North Schleswiger to Hansen’s and Christiansen’s articles. Hans Lindemann argued that he did not see any paradox in being German in North Schleswig. He argued that the minority ‘[was] German because [their] fathers were German, because Germany [was their] fatherland, and because tomorrow [they] wish[ed] to hear to German language too’.115 Lindemann also addressed a statement made in a different context, that ‘there was no German soul in the German schools’. He answered: ‘whose fault is that? Our … the youth’s!’ He elaborated that the German soul would return if young people began speaking German amongst themselves and added that ‘the best thing would be if the German soul existed not only in the schools but in everyday life’.116 Finally, regarding Siegfried Christiansen’s point that before 1945 the minority aimed to honour Germany, Lindemann wrote: ‘but we still do that today, do we not?’117 Lindemann’s position differed from those of his two peers and somewhat from the one presented in the school and language association’s mission statements. Lindemann emphasised the role of the German language and argued that national

200 • Beyond the Border

identity was inherited from the parents. Lindemann, in other words, saw the German-minority identity as something that did not require the discussion and definition that Christiansen requested. Hans Christian Hansen, however, challenged Lindemann’s position in the following issue. He wrote: Our German North Schleswiger is really lucky. Now he knows how to be a real German. He rushes to his little study, far from his hostile surroundings to develop a definition that relieves his German soul and honours Germany. Does he not realise that national sentiments escape cold intellect? He has buried in his subconscious the obvious question what actually is a fatherland.118

Hansen’s reply was clearly sarcastic and belittling of the notion that Lindemann did not find national identity to be as complicated as he and Christiansen. Perhaps this influenced Die Brücke’s decision of attempting to end the debate: in a footnote to Hansen’s article, the editor added: ‘in order not to continue this discussion endlessly, we wish to end it with these two contributions. Therefore we ask you to not submit anything else related to this topic’.119 It seems, however, that Die Brücke soon regretted that decision. The January/February 1966 issue featured an article which criticised both the sarcastic contribution by Hans Christian Hansen, but also the decision by Die Brücke to close down the debate. Hans J. Gläser argued that ‘there [could] not be enough contributions to this theme’ but he expressed his disappointment about the negative tone.120 He wrote: Among other things, Die Brücke should be the voice of the different opinions of the younger generation. I do not know whether it was right to end the discussion this way, and let it end so negatively … finally we have a voice [in Die Brücke] – then let us just for once talk.121

Hans J. Gläser believed it was necessary and important to discuss ‘in what ways one could be German in North Schleswig’. He also wished to continue discussing the minority’s relationship with Germany, Denmark, Europe, culture, the past and the future.122 Siegfried Christiansen also reacted against the decision to end the debate. He argued that ‘now when young people finally [had] the courage to think something through, to show their faces, to dare saying something uncomfortable, [they] had to give up’. He accused Die Brücke of not living up to their own ambitions of being ‘a voice of minority youth’, and he argued that the older generation had missed their chance of having a real discussion with the younger one by ‘forcefully stopping the debate’.123 Die Brücke, however, did not accept that it had ‘forcefully’ ended any discussions. The editors attempted to appear open-minded

But Who Are We …? • 201

by adding in a comment to Siegfried Christiansen’s article that ‘criticism [was] welcome … but a certain level of objectivity had to be maintained’.124 Unfortunately, the reasons behind Die Brücke’s decision first to end the discussion and then to re-open it with Gläser’s and Christiansen’s contributions remain unknown. Nevertheless, it was clear that the establishment changed its mind, and that young people were allowed to continue the discussion publicly. This decision showed that, by the late 1960s, Die Brücke – like Treklangen and Vulkanen – decided to open up for more controversial issues. This revealed two significant changes about young people and the minority in general. First, some young people demanded the space to discuss the ambiguities of belonging to the minority group, and they wanted to do so in their own way and style. Second, the establishment decided to let go of their control and censorship and give young people the space to discuss. Over the summer of 1966, the debate about the essence of what it meant to be German minority in North Schleswig and what the relationship with Germany should be continued in Die Brücke. Two representatives of the older generation, Johannes Schmidt and Irmgard Conradsen contributed to the debate, expressing positions that were already well-known. Johannes Schmidt wrote, for example, that personally he felt ‘more connected to German culture than to Danish’.125 He also turned to the argument previously presented visà-vis Europe that ‘in order to be European, one must be German first’. He added that ‘we, with a German ethos should nourish our German culture as much as possible, but at the same time respect and know the Danish culture well’.126 Irmgard Conradsen added some more points to Schmidt’s position. She referred to the nineteenth-century German writer, Jakob Grimm (1785–1863), arguing that ‘the love of [one’s] people and homeland [was] a divine feeling that [was] so deeply imprinted in every human’s soul. Suffering and misfortune in the homeland [did] not compromise the feeling, it [strengthened] it’. Mentioning Grimm, the collector of several fairy tales, as well as the German Mythology, represented a conservative perception of national belonging. Conradsen added that some people were tempted by what she called ‘cosmo-political imaginations’ and that such people risked becoming so ‘spiritually inhibited’ that they were no longer able to ‘comprehend the richness of the spiritual belonging to a people’.127 Pointing this out, Irmgard Conradsen probably reacted against in particular Hans Christian Hansen’s reflections on being young and German minority in Copenhagen.

202 • Beyond the Border

Subsequently, another Copenhagen-based, German-minority student argued against Irmgard Conradsen’s description of national identity as a divine and unchangeable feeling. Hans Jürgen Höher contested the application of Jakob Grimm’s definition of nationality, stressing that the minority ‘needed to understand the concepts [of nationality] in their contemporary contexts’. Furthermore he criticised the argument that nationality was a feeling in one’s heart. He wrote: With this trick, those who are critical or in doubt will lose their ability to criticise: They are branded as spiritually inhibited and heartless. If they cannot understand these eternal truths, they cannot be helped. This way, one does not need to engage with their arguments. Arguments do not count; reason is not encouraged, because one has to u n d e r s t a n d [sic.] with the heart.128

The division between different understandings of what being German minority in North Schleswig actually entailed were also discussed in a more concrete way. A debate about the custom of singing the German national anthem Das Deutschlandlied represented another manifestation of the diverse perceptions on the issue. The choice to sing all three stanzas of the song at the minority’s annual gathering, Deutsches Tag, was contested by student in Kiel (and previously active member of Kreis Junger Schleswiger), Ursula Tästensen. She argued that, by singing the song in an unaltered form, the minority distanced itself from developments in West Germany where, since the early 1950s, only the third stanza was used as the national anthem. She argued: Even if we do not wish to understand the ‘above all’ [über alles] in a territorial sense, the understanding that remains is that Germany is more important to us and better than all others in the world. How many in North Schleswig can really say that with an honest heart?129

Ursula Tästensen’s argument against singing the first stanza was supported by one of the editors of Die Brücke, Dr Augustin. Evidently, Augustin argued that the territorial definitions of Germany mentioned in the first stanza of the song (from the Mass to the Memel, from the Etsch to the Belt) should not be taken literally. Still, he pointed out that it was the aspirations of the Third Reich which ‘set the world on fire’. He explained: If what remains of Germany, on both sides of the wall, include the first two stanzas in their national anthem, it must appear provocative and as if we have not learned anything from history. All promises that we do not mean this in territorial sense are useless … it is not illegal to sing all three stanzas, but if asked if it is wise, I must say no. There are not only Germans in this world.130

But Who Are We …?  •  203

The two contributions illustrated that conditions in West Germany could also be applied to contest conditions in North Schleswig. Blaming the minority for distancing itself from West Germany, Ursula Tästensen actually argued that the minority should also consider and follow developments there. At the same time, however, she challenged the importance of Germany when she questioned that North Schleswigers could actually say honestly that Germany stood ‘above all’. Dr Augustin’s contribution emphasised the minority’s connection to Germany, stressing that ‘we’ should learn from history. He too regarded the West German practice of only singing the third stanza a wise one. In September 1967, Die Brücke contained an article arguing differently. Once more, Irmgard Conradsen held the opposite view and defended singing all three stanzas of the anthem. Conradsen argued against Dr Augustin and wrote that she found it ‘too easy and comfortable to make the first two stanzas of the Deutschlandlied responsible for the Second World War’. Although this was an exaggeration of Dr Augustin’s statement, the important issue was the passion with which she objected to the whole debate, and what, more broadly, she perceived being German meant. She wrote: There will always be Germans who do not wish to surrender the conviction that we are one German people: badly wounded, separated and divided in different systems, but still Germans, all in the same way German, one German people with an obligation to keep our people alive.131

Conradsen’s statement was a testimony to the fact that however much the German minority officially embraced a position as mediator between Germans and Danes by the late 1960s, traditional positions still existed in North Schleswig. In addition, the conservative views were disseminated in the minority’s official publication for young people. Evidently, the Deutschlandlied was a particular case. When some North Schleswigers favoured including the first stanza of the anthem, it probably had more to do with the stanza’s geographical definition of Germany than with the statement that Germany was ‘above all’. The German minority may have valued the stanza more because its mentioning of ‘the Belt’ was a direct reference to Germany’s pre-1920 border, which included all of Schleswig. Conradsen’s perceptions of German-minority identity overall, did not differ substantially from perceptions communicated in, for example, Volkskalender twenty years earlier. In fact, Conradsen’s views also differed from the ways

204  •  Beyond the Border

in which national belonging and pride were approached in West Germany itself. Expressing national pride in West Germany was a taboo, and an alternative to the old sense of national pride, based on the supposed superiority of the German people, was never really formulated.132 Although substantial variation existed between the two young minority groups in North and South Schleswig, the debate in Die Brücke illustrated that some youths contested their minority identities in similar ways by asking similar questions. Indeed, it also seemed that German-minority youths – like their peers in South Schleswig – experienced that their kin-state on the other side of the border were unaware of conditions in the Danish–German border region. In March 1968, a student from Tønder, Christel Karstensen, wrote about her experiences of travelling to Germany. Her meeting young people from West Germany challenged the notion of being ‘one German people’ as Conradsen had argued. Karstensen wrote that she and her classmates had been astonished to discover that young Germans had asked the visitors from North Schleswig why they did not consider themselves to be Danes. She wrote: We did not understand why Germans, who we have only just met, are so prejudiced: ‘You might as well be Danes? Why are you not?’ Yes, why not? Because we feel attached to the German nationality, even if some of that [attachment] is diminishing. By and large we feel German, we speak German, read German and associate ourselves with Germans.133

By the late 1960s, belonging to a minority was therefore not only challenged from within the minorities but also from the outside. German-minority youths did not essentially reject being German, but some wanted to discuss what it meant. It seems that Die Brücke and Jugendverband wanted to stop the discussion but regretted their decision when young people objected to it. Instead, the magazine actually provided the space for presenting controversial and conflicting opinions. At the same time, it was clear that an era was coming to an end and the industrialisation of agriculture in Denmark meant that the German-minority ideal of life on the family farm became an ever more unrealistic one. Neither minority was isolated from the changes taking place around them: this development continued in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when changing ideas in society continued to influence both minorities to an even greater extent.

But Who Are We …? • 205

Notes  1. Jørgensen and Jensen, ’Studenteroprøret i Danmark’; Jensen and Jørgensen, ’1968 i Danmark’; Jørgensen, ’Scandinavia’ and Jørgensen, ’The Scandinavian 1968’.  2. Jørgensen, ’The Scandinavian 1968’, 331.   3. Jensen and Jørgensen, ’Studenteroprøret i Danmark’, 240.   4. Ibid., 241.  5. Jørgensen, ‘The Scandinavian 1968’, 332.   6. Ibid., 333.  7. Ibid., 334.   8. Ibid., 333.  9. Ibid. 10. Siegfried, ‘”Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?”’, 728. 11. Ibid., 727–28. 12. Ibid., 729. 13. Ibid., 738. 14. Personal childhood memoirs memoires recalling these experiences have been collected and published by the Danish-minority’s library in Flensburg. See Hamre and Runge, Barn og ung i Sydslesvig, vol. 1, 52–53, 163–164, 83– 84, 365–67, and 75–76. 15. Flensborg Avis (31 December 1960). ‘Erik Vestergaard: “Sydslesvigdiskussionen i Flensborg – Debatten om rejse eller blive nåede konkrete resultater”’. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Grænsen (November 1960), 10. ‘Bent A. Koch: Samvittighedens stavnsbånd – Bør de unge danske sydslesvigere under alle omstændigheder vende hjem?’. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. Grænsen (February 1961), 5–6. ‘Bent A. Kock: Misforstået humanitet eller …? En diskussion mellem A. Svensson og Bent A. Kock’. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. Flensborg Avis (12 February 1962). ‘Et af de mest brændende spørgsmål: Vil ungdommen i Sydslesvig rejse eller blive?’. 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Flensborg Avis (18 October 1963). ‘Rejse eller blive’. 34. Ibid.

206  •  Beyond the Border

35. Flensborg Avis (6 January 1967). ‘Erik Vestergaard: Kronika før – Kronika nu’. 36. Ibid. 37. OHI: TWS (18 September 2014): Danish-minority female born 1948. 38. OHI: TWS (16 February 2016): Danish-minority male born 1946. 39. OHI: TWS (23 January 2014): Danish-minority male born 1953. 40. Flensborg Avis (18 June 1970). ‘Fem unge sydslesvigeres mening om Sydslesvig – Føler sig ikke forpligtet til at vende tilbage til hjemstavnen fra København bare for at støtte danskheden’. 41. Ibid. 42. Ibid. 43. Ibid. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. See Chapter 3. 48. Vulkanen (June 1964), 5–6. ‘Mtz: Kontaktproblemer?’. 49. Vulkanen (December 1965), 11-13. ‘Karen Jacobsen: “Front og Bro” Endnu engang…’. 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. Vulkanen (February 1966), 4–6. ‘Hans Eric Windberg: En fantast – eller den teoretiske pige?’. 53. Idid. 54. Vulkanen (February 1966), 7. ‘Hv: Quo Vadis, Karen?’. 55. Vulkanen (May 1966). ‘Spørgeskema’. 56. Vulkanen (December 1966). ‘Resultater fra rundspørget’. 57. Treklangen (December 1966 – January 1967), 124. ‘Detlev Lorenzen: Kætteriske betragtninger til fælles gavn’. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. 60. FSS-Nyt, no. 2 (1965), 3–4. ‘Kay Einfeldt: Hvorfor jeg ikke vil vælge SSV ved et forbundsvalg’. 61. Ibid., 7–8. ‘Jens Ingwersen: Sydslesvig – et missionens felt?’. 62. Ibid., 9–10. ‘Jens Ingwersen: Om at være dansk’. 63. FSS-Nyt (March 1966), 27–28. ‘Lothar Köster: I trøjen som sydslesviger?’. 64. Ibid. 65. Ibid. 66. Treklangen (February 1967), 147–149. ‘Holger Hinz: Efter 100 års folkelig oplysning’. 67. Ibid. 68. Treklangen (February 1968), 155–58. ‘Badutte: Nationalitet og Nationalisme’. 69. Treklangen (March 1968), 171–72. ‘Jens Ingwersen: Det danske mindretals chancer i morgen’. 70. Ibid. 71. FSS-Nyt (December 1965), 9–12. ‘Jens Ingwersen: Tyveknægte og ransmænd: Et interview med skoleleder Nicolai Büchert, Husby’.

But Who Are We …? • 207

 72. Ibid.   73. Flensborg Avis (28 February 1966). ‘Flemming Møller: Generations-skiftet og danskheden i Sydslesvig’.   74. Ibid.  75. Flensborg Avis (11 March 1966). ‘Thorbjørn Heick: Generationsproblemet i Sydslesvig’   76. See Chapter 4.  77. Flensborg Avis (15 April 1966). ‘Fr. Rudbeck: Mindretallenes politiske krise’.   78. Flensborg Avis (4 May 1966). ‘Siegfried Andresen: Generationsskifte, fornyelse og styrkelse’.  79. Flensborg Avis (9 May 1966). ‘W.A. Andresen: Blå sangbog og kaffebord’.   80. Flensborg Avis (29 June 1966). ‘Johs. Hoffmeyer. Trænger vort grænsespørgsmål til at blive af-romantiseret?’.   81. Ibid.   82. Flensborg Avis (2 February 1967). ‘Nicolai Büchert: ’Debatten i Husby’.   83. FSS-Nyt (December 1965), 22–23. ‘Jens Ingwersen: Om os selv…’   84. FSS-Nyt (July 1966), 22. ‘Jens Ingwersen: SSV – For bedsteforældre’.   85. Ibid.   86. Ibid.   87. Flensborg Avis (18 February 1967) ‘Jens Ingwersen: Reaktionært og anti-individualistisk’.   88. The actual number was 196,506. See: Danish Statistics (1960), retrieved 3 August 2016 from http://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/GetPubFile. aspx?id=13347&sid=hele2.   89. The actual number was 91,989. Ibid.  90. The actual number was 146,211. See: Danish Statistics (1970), retrieved 3 August 2016 from http://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/GetPubFile. aspx?id=13349&sid=landbrug.  91. The actual number was 26,663. Ibid.  92. Grænsen (July 1964), 10–11. ‘Simon J. From: Strømninger ved Nordens sydgrænse’.   93. Grænsen (April 1965), 11–12. ‘Poul Melgaard: Erhvervsmæssig ekspansion i Sønderjylland – En optimistisk beretning fra Sønderjyllands Erhvervsråd om omfattende bestræbelser for udbygning af landsdelens erhvervsliv’.   94. Ibid.  95. Die Brücke (November/December 1964), 8. ‘Peter Rasmussen: Landwirte werden Mangelware – Aber umso grösser diene ihre Chancen – Möglichkeiten der Ertüchtigung nutzen’.   96. Ibid.  97. Ibid.   98. Die Brücke (January/February 1965), 7. ‘Herman Heil: Jugend und Beruf – Angebot an junge Handwerke’.  99. OHI: TWS (31 March 2015): German-minority female born 1958. 100. Frank Lubowitz, 100 Jahre Nordschleswigscher Volkshochschulverein, 246. 101. Heimatverbunden, Festschrift, 69. 102. Ibid.

208  •  Beyond the Border

103. See Chapter 1. 104. Die Brücke (March 1967), 4–15. ‘Jugend und Beruf’. 105. Ibid. 106. Ibid. 107. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1965), 79. ‘Arthur Lessow: Schlussbetrachtung’. 108. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1969), 64. ‘Arthur Lessow: Schlussbetrachtung’. 109. Die Brücke (March/Aprril 1965), 7, 10. ‘Siegfried Christiansen: “Das Land der True”’ 110. Ibid. 111. Ibid. 112. Ibid. 113. Die Brücke (May/June 1965), 2. ‘Hans Christian Hansen: Wenn man nach Kopenhagen kommt … Probleme junger deutscher Nordschleswiger in der Hauptstadt’. 114. Ibid. 115. Die Brücke (September/October 1965), 14. ‘Hans Lindemann: … weil unsere Väter deutsch sind’. 116. Ibid. 117. Ibid. 118. Die Brücke (November/December 1965), 3. ‘Hans Christian Hansen: Die Erlösung eines Heimdeutschen’. 119. Ibid. 120. Die Brücke (Janurary/February 1966), 3. ‘Hans J. Gläser: Diskutieren – aber wie?’. 121. Ibid. 122. Ibid. 123. Die Brücke (May/June 1966), 2, 4. ‘Siegfried Christiansen: … gelobt und gelästert’. 124. Ibid. (Comment added by Horst Roth.) 125. Die Brücke (May/June 1966), 5. ‘Johannes Schmidt: Probleme der nordschleswigen Jugend’. 126. Ibid. 127. Die Brücke (July/August 1966), 2, 11. ‘Irmgard Conradsen: … gelobt und gelästert’. 128. Die Brücke (September/October 1966), 2. ‘Hans-Jürgen Höher, Kopenhagen: Phrasendrescherei …’. 129. Die Brücke (March 1967), 2. ‘Ursula Tästensen: Gedanken zur Liedeswahl des Deutschen Tages 1967’. 130. Die Brücke (March 1967), 2. ‘Dr Augustin: Deutschlandlied – nur 3. Strophe? Ja!’. 131. Die Brücke (September 1967), 2, 23. ‘Irmgard Conradsen: Noch einmal: “Deutschlandlied”’. 132. See Miller-Idriss, Blood and Culture), 51–52. 133. Die Brücke (March 1968), 7–8. ‘Christel Karstensen: Warum seid Ihr keine Dänen? – Wie fühlt sich ein junger deutscher Nordschleswiger, wenn er nach Deutschland kommt?’.

But Who Are We …? • 209

Bibliography Hamre, Jørgen and Johann Runge. Barn og ung i Sydslesvig 1900–1982: sydslesvigske år og dage. Vol. 1. Flensborg: Studieafdelingen ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 1986. ———. Barn og ung i Sydslesvig 1900–1982: sydslesvigske år og dage. Vol. 2. Flensborg: Studieafdelingen ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig, 1986. Heimatverbunden. Festschrift zum 25järigen Bestehen der NachschuleJugendvolkshochschule in Tingleff. Aabenraa: H. Mordieck, 1976. Jensen, Steven L.B. and Thomas Ekman Jørgensen. ‘1968 i Danmark’. In 1968: Ungdomsrevolte & global protest, edited by Norbert Frei, 239–260. Slagelse: Ellerkær, 2008. Jørgensen, Thomas E. ‘Scandinavia’. In 1968 in Europe: A History of Protest and Activism, 1956–1977, edited by Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth, 239– 52. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. ———. ‘The Scandinavian 1968 in a European Perspective’. Scandinavian Journal of History 33, no. 4 (2008): 326–38. Jørgensen, Thomas E. and Steven L.B. Jensen. ‘Studenteroprøret i Danmark’. Historisk Tidsskrift 101, no. 2 (2001): 435–70. Lubowitz, Frank. 100 Jahre Nordschleswigscher Volkshochschulverein. Aabenraa: Heimatkundliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft, 2005. Miller-Idriss, Cynthia. Blood and Culture: Youth, Right-Wing Extremism, and National Belonging in Contemporary Germany. Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press, 2009. Siegfried, Detlef. ‘‘Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?’ Voices of Conflict and Consensus between Generations in 1960s West Germany’. Journal of Contemporary History 40, no. 4 (2005): 727–44.

O7 Young People of Their Time?

Gender, Global Interests and (Non-) Rebellions, c. 1967–71

By the late 1960s, young minorities in the Danish–German borderlands had begun to perceive the central questions around what it meant to belong to the two national groups in their own way. Even though it was never a clear-cut one, a distinct young position had taken shape. Danish-minority youths now strongly rejected the national struggle for reunification with Denmark; they questioned the understanding of Denmark as the ideal society; and they refused to see their Germanmajority neighbour as the enemy. In North Schleswig, Germanminority youths shared some of these experiences. They had begun to question the nature of national belonging as something natural and inherent in a person, and they no longer wished to live up to the principle that the national groups in the borderlands should live in separate spheres. The changes in young people’s perceptions were driven by the changes in society. New political, economic and cultural realities were conduits for the new opinions and attitudes of young minorities in the borderlands. However, influences coming from beyond the borderlands did not simply manifest themselves as the backdrop against which changes regarding questions of a minority and national nature took place. Young people also began to take direct inspiration from a transnational youth culture in other ways. They became occupied with international questions, such as human rights, gender equality and the resistance against war, in particular in Vietnam.

Young People of Their Time? • 211

The late 1960s is associated with a change in social and cultural practices and with rebellion against and confrontation with traditional values. Historians have supported the idea that youth culture became more international but they have pluralised and challenged the associations of youth with rebellions.1 Detlef Siegfried, for example, argues that ‘only a small number of youths actually took part in the student rebellions of 1968’ and that ‘1968’ was a long process and not just a ‘sudden occurrence’.2 In their studies of 1968, Maud Bracke and Anette Warring argue that student rebellions have been exaggerated in the scholarship because ‘the people who are writing these histories [of ‘1968’] were themselves in the foreground of the student movement’.3 Finally, James Hijiya argues that history has largely ignored what he has called the ‘Conservative 1960s’.4 Young-minority experiences resonated with all of these points, but distinct characteristics also existed. Political topics completely unrelated to minority issues or the border region started to occupy minority youths, alongside the debate about what being part of a Danish or German minority actually meant. German-minority youths at the college in Tinglev, for example, behaved differently than ten years before and, in Die Brücke, young people began demanding concessions on behalf of the older generation. The establishment approached the new generation of youths in different ways: where some conceded, others held onto traditional values. At the same time, however, not all young people were rebellious, even though they requested more control of their own spheres. In Copenhagen, for example, the Germanminority student fraternity (VSSt) wanted to open up to female members, but not everybody back home agreed. Similarly, in South Schleswig, a small group of youth in Flensburg wished to change their youth association. In many ways, they succeeded, and the Danishminority establishment accepted the changes; however, when it came to one of the old national questions in South Schleswig, some ideas were still non-grata.

Young German-Minority Challenges to Authority: Implementing New Ideas in Conventional Ways By the late 1960s and early 1970s, young people behaved and articulated themselves in significantly different ways than just fifteen years earlier. In contrast to the youth of the 1950s, young people had begun speaking their minds much more freely, demanding more control over

212 • Beyond the Border

their own spheres and activities. They wanted to determine themselves what they were interested in and when. In North Schleswig, one of the problems was that the individuals who worked with young people had remained the same for decades. It was perhaps a distinct rural feature that the responsibility of young spheres in the borderlands rested on a limited number of individuals. Paul Koopmann, for example, was headmaster of the college in Tinglev from 1952 to 1972. Throughout this period, Koopmann was actively engaged with all kinds of activity related to German-minority youths, including being chairman of Jugendverband in the early 1960s. He believed that young people’s behaviour had changed for the worse, at least according to a statement he wrote a few years after his retirement: Only after 1970 did the more serious difficulties appear, when a wave of liberalisation started to question all the unwritten rules that we took for granted. It began with young people smoking and drinking alcohol; with changed attitudes to sex and to questions of politeness and distance. A completely new style for young people started to manifest itself.5

Student accounts from the college point in the same direction: they indicate a distance from Koopmann and the values traditionally associated with the college. One man, a student in the early and again in the late 1960s, said that by his second time in Tinglev ‘it was as if Koopmann was burned out’.6 A woman who attended the college in 1967/68 mentioned that Koopmann’s history lessons on Friday afternoon ‘seemed like a marathon’ and she highlighted performing the contemporary rock song ‘The House of the Rising Sun’ with friends at the graduation ceremony as one of her best experiences.7 Young people distancing themselves from the establishment could also be found in Die Brücke and Hans Lindemann wrote about the generational differences in the late 1960s. Lindemann argued that, as the ‘gentlemen on the board [of Jugendverband]’ often criticised young people, he felt inclined to criticise them too. Lindemann argued that although the board accused young people of being ‘too lazy to do anything’, in reality, young people’s lack of participation was due to their disinterest in Jugendverband’s activities. Lindemann reasoned that Jugendverband should begin letting young people participate in organising activities before ‘the German minority [became] a minority without youths’. Furthermore, Lindemann wrote about the ‘gentlemen on the board’: One gets the feeling that they see young people as pieces in a game of chess whom they can move around as they see fit, and this way they

Young People of Their Time?  •  213

forget that young people do not exist for the sake of Jugendverband but that Jugendverband exists for the sake of young people.8

Hans Lindemann pointed out the fact that minority-youth associations in their hitherto form no longer appealed to the interests of young people, and that youths did not accept critique any longer without defending their own positions. Interestingly, Lindemann had actually represented the traditionalist position in the debate in Die Brücke about minority national identity two years earlier. In 1965, when other German-minority youths questioned what being German in North Schleswig actually meant, Lindemann’s position was that being German represented something static and unquestionable. Lindemann thus perceived the German national identity to be as unambiguous as many of the older generation but, at the same time, he challenged the formats of minority-youth activities in North Schleswig. This suggests that there was not necessarily a correlation between challenging a strong sense of national connection and challenging the minority establishment at the same time. The troubled relationship between the older and younger generations was dealt with extensively the September 1968 issue of Die Brücke. Among several articles, the issue contained a fictitious story about a mother in North Schleswig and a daughter who had moved to Berlin.9 The daughter had moved away in order to live with other people who also self-identified as Gammlers,10 and she explained how her decision was influenced by the fact that a young man had been harassed for having long hair by two elderly ladies. Later, the mother had met the same young man, who now had had his hair cut in order to be able to attend his mother’s funeral. The moral of the story seemed to be that Die Brücke actually called upon the older generation to show tolerance of young people. But Die Brücke’s position on generational differences was contradictory. It is argued in another article that young people had no role models or ideals, and that they did not orient themselves towards anything of value.11 Even though the same article also stresses: If we attempt to understand the youth of today, we must accept the reality that young people’s opinion of authority has changed. All people of authority are critically observed, and their only chance to be recognised by young people is if they prove themselves to be humanistic.12

Similar arguments were presented by Hans Jürgen Nissen, elected chairman of Jugendverband in 1969. In 1970, Nissen wrote in Volkskalender as an ‘afterthought to the annual report of Jugendverband’ that young people were not always aware of their own goals and wishes

214  •  Beyond the Border

for the future.13 He argued that instead of attempting to activate young people in specific ways, the minority should provide a framework within which young people themselves could create a community. Nissen concluded that ‘despite the difficulties, [the minority] [had] to constantly think about finding appealing ways of doing things, which suit[ed] young people and [could] be accepted by them’.14 Besides questioning the authority of the older generations, young people began to question other practices too, more specifically, the place and rights of women. The struggle for equality between the genders is often associated with the late 1960s but historian Sara M. Evans has warned against assuming that the international ‘1968’ movements were as focused on the issues of gender as they were on other, for example, anti-war and anti-militarism. Evans argues that ‘feminist rebellions began as conflicts within those movements’.15 According to Evans, ‘women’s roles in the movements were often conventional … and many gained status primarily through relationships with male leaders’.16 In a similar fashion, the struggle for German-minority gender equality had its own unique features: first, the discussion of it came forward in an association for males only and second, the young men attempting to expand the rights of women did so in rather traditional ways. Traditionally, German-minority gender roles were rigidly defined. At the college in Tinglev, for example, girls and boys were strictly divided. Sleeping dorms were housed in two different buildings, and leisure activities were gender divided too.17 The very nature of the programmes taught at the college supported the idea of a Germanminority lifestyle in North Schleswig that in itself encompassed a fixed gender division: men should work in agriculture and women should work in the home. Despite the rigid separation of the genders, Koopmann actually considered the college to be at the forefront of gender equality. In the mid 1960s, the school introduced cooking classes for boys, and Koopmann wrote, in 1975, that the college was the first of its kind in Denmark to introduce obligatory cooking lessons for boys.18 But the reason behind doing so posed no great threat to traditional gender perceptions. According to Koopmann, the idea was ‘to equip the man with elementary cooking skills so that, in case of illness, he could substitute his wife’.19 Although the evidence is scarce, it seems that, in social situations, young people themselves also enforced these gender roles. In an article in Die Brücke about the nature of young people’s activities, a young man, Cornelius Tästensen, argued that everybody should take responsibility for initiating activities and that everyone should

Young People of Their Time? • 215

be included. Tästensen wrote that at get-togethers there was always a ‘dead point’ after the official activity ended, when ‘we young men sat in a corner … discussing cars, motorbikes and tractors … [while] the girls were cleaning and washing up’.20 Tästensen did not suggest that the young men should help the girls; regarding dancing on such evenings, however, he wrote that ‘the girls could also be the ones who invited a boy to dance’.21 Finally, rigid gender roles between men and women seemed also to have been enforced in family homes. As a German-minority woman born in 1958, in the North Schleswig countryside, said in 2015: My parents thought that it was good to finish elementary school [roughly aged 16] but after that we had to do something with our hands … If I was reading – and I did that a lot – they always said: Do you not have anything to do? But if I was knitting, they said: Look at the thrifty one! That was their perception … I think their dream was that their daughters would marry rich farmers.22

Generational differences over the German-minority gender issue in the late 1960s and early 1970s came out in the case of the university student association for German-minority youths in Copenhagen, Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten (VSSt). Founded after the drawing of the new border in 1920, the association’s structure mirrored student associations in Germany. The association was set up because North Schleswig’s annexation in Denmark meant that a Danish degree was necessary in order assume employment within state-related fields, such as law or local government, in North Schleswig.23 Male students could seek membership of what VSSt called the Brüderbund (fraternity) when they began studying. After their graduation they would be transferred into the Altherrenschaft (fraternity alumni). VSSt, like other German-minority associations in Denmark, was very active in the years 1920–40. During the Second World War it was closed down, but in 1951 it resumed its activities. In the 1950s, the association gathered in a rented space centrally in Copenhagen. According to the account of one previous fraternity brother, Peter Iver Johannsen, VSSt became a popular place to gather, and by the early 1960s, the fraternity needed more space.24 In 1961, VSSt bought a villa in Hellerup in the north of Copenhagen, which became the new gathering place and dormitory for a smaller number of students.25 The activities of VSSt in the 1960s and early 1970s are documented in a well-kept private archive that contains an almost complete collection of semester reports; lists of members and activities as well as correspondence between the fraternity and fraternity alumni and various guests and potential guests.

216  •  Beyond the Border

The semester reports tell the story about a fraternity that was part of the intellectual and cultural elite, and which challenged neither the fraternity alumni nor the rest of the minority establishment in North Schleswig. The VSSt organised lecture nights, generally around the topics of literature, art and music, and the events and lectures often included guests and speakers from North Schleswig. The semester report from the autumn of 1963, for example, mentions that ‘with only one exception, all our lecturers this semester came from North Schleswig, because the questions related to our homeland lie close to our hearts’.26 Günter Weitling, interestingly, was one of the lecturers who spoke to the fraternity in the autumn of 1963. Weitling spoke on the topic ‘Church and War’ and, according to the semester report, there was no mentioning of his series of articles in Der Nordschleswiger about ‘The History-less Generation,27 the articles inspiring the activities of Kreis Junger Schleswiger in Aabenraa, published two years earlier.28 Perhaps the students in VSSt did not discuss with Weitling any of his points about minority identity, or perhaps the students did not include it in the semester report. Either way, the fraternity’s position as a noncontroversial minority-youth association was clear. Apart from maintaining the ties to North Schleswig, nurturing connections with West Germany constituted an important element of VSSt’s activities too. Almost all semester reports announce the names of fraternity brothers who spent semesters abroad in West German universities, and lecture topics were often associated with Germany. In the autumn semester of 1964, for example, the fraternity discussed ‘Bismarck from today’s perspective’ as well as the ‘contemporary political situation in West Germany’.29 By the mid and late 1960s, the minority question became a topic of discussion in VSSt as well. In the autumn of 1965, the Danish professor and border region historian, Troels Fink, visited the villa in Hellerup to speak about Danish foreign policies; but according to the semester report, ‘the following discussion dealt with contemporary minority politics – in particular the situation in South Schleswig’.30 In the spring of 1967, the general secretary of the Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN), Poul Skadegaard also spoke to the fraternity. In 1967, VSSt even established contact to the Danish-minority student association, Foreningen for Sydslesvigske Studerende (FSS). The semester report read: Through personal efforts, official contact has been made to ‘Foreningen af Sydslesvigske Studerende’ (FSS). After mutual visits we have established that by and large, we discuss the same problems in the two associations.31

Young People of Their Time? • 217

Around the same time that VSSt began inviting FSS to its meetings, the question about women in the association surfaced in the reports. In autumn 1967, the fraternity reported that ‘[they] attempted – within the limits imposed on [them] by the founding idea – to carry out as many activities as possible together with female North Schleswigers living in Copenhagen’.32 The reports from the spring and autumn semesters of 1968 mention the question of women in the association too, and they express regret that more males than females had participated in the activities. According to the 1968 autumn semester report, the fraternity was now keen to increase the number of women participating.33 The general pattern of young people wanting to decide for themselves came clearly to the fore in connection with the question of female memberships of VSSt. In 1969, the fraternity began debating whether to change the statutes of VSSt in order to make it possible for women to become full and equal members. In 1969, the spring report assessed the current statutes to be ‘irrational and dated’ but the fraternity was actually split on the question of female membership; a vote in the fraternity convent showed that seven were for, six were against and four abstained.34 In the autumn of 1969, however, the mood had shifted. Now the fraternity argued: ‘like in the previous semesters, girls were invited to all activities besides the fraternity convents’.35 Furthermore, the report stated that ‘the strong engagement with these questions [had] shown the importance of reforms and change to the old statutes’. The fraternity saw it as ‘one of [their] obligations to ensure a contemporary framework for the association’.36 Alongside VSSt’s focus on female membership in the late 1960s, the themes of the fraternity’s lectures changed as well. In March 1968, for example, Arne Melchior, a businessman and son of the Copenhagen rabbi, gave a lecture about the Arab–Israeli conflict.37 In the spring of 1969, the themes for discussion were the political situation in Africa, jazz, and the musical ‘Teenagerlove’. The change of focus was even mentioned in the semester report, when the fraternity wrote in 1969 that ‘in the spring semester [they] had not had any lectures relating to the border region’.38 In comparison to the themes discussed in the early 1960s, it was clear that young people had shifted their attention away from the border region towards global and international issues. In their campaign for female membership, however, the fraternity neither attempted to overthrow the fraternity alumni nor did they adopt the rebellious youth rhetoric of the time. The fraternity worked systematically and thoroughly, examining the different positions for and against. By 1969, Siegfried Christiansen had become first speaker

218  •  Beyond the Border

of the association, and one of the most active advocates for female membership. His strong position for membership was illustrated by the guests he invited to speak in VSSt during the spring semester of 1970. On 3 December 1969, for example, Christiansen invited the Danish avant-garde fashion designer, Bent Visti, to give a lecture about gender conventions in fashion. Christiansen wrote to Visti: It seems to me that fashion precisely supports the liberation from conventional patterns of behaviour while at the same time it appeals to the fact that we should dress in a way that make us comfortable and able to function regardless of gender.39

Christiansen encouraged Visti to visit the fraternity and ‘give his insider views on this matter’. According to the archive, however, Visti never visited the fraternity. On the date suggested by Christiansen, 20 March 1970, VSSt instead hosted telegraphist Niels Fröhlich to discuss ‘the conditions of the socialist opposition in Denmark today’.40 Nevertheless, the importance here is that Christiansen initiated activities that differed considerably from the standard interests of VSSt. VSSt also invited Danish journalist and women’s rights activist Merete Bjørn Hanssen to give a lecture. In the letter of invitation, Siegfried Christiansen’s views on gender issues both in Denmark and within the German minority are made very explicit. Christiansen wrote to Hanssen that VSSt invited her because she had ‘spoken out against the unreasonable but unfortunately common gender discrimination’. Furthermore, Christiansen described VSSt this way: In total accordance with what can be expected of a German fraternity, our association has been for male students only since its founding in the 1920s. But after very intensive preparations, there is now the hope that this unacceptable gender discrimination will end soon. Our statues are about to be thoroughly revised.41

Christiansen added: In addition, perhaps symptomatic for our association and its not always so glorious history, you will, if you accept this invitation, be the first ever female guest speaker. At least as far as I am able to tell.42

Merete Bjørn Hanssen visited the fraternity on 20 February 1970 and gave a lecture on ‘the oppression of women in society’.43 The expected revision of the statutes, however, did not happen as easily as Christiansen and VSSt had hoped. The semester report evaluating the spring of 1970 explains that the question had been presented at a meeting where both fraternity and fraternity alumni were eligible to vote. According to the report, the vote – which

Young People of Their Time? • 219

followed from ‘an extensive discussion’ – resulted in a majority against female membership of VSSt. As a consequence of the result, Siegfried Christiansen resigned as the first speaker of the association.44 The relatively brief account of the events as presented in the semester report was elaborated on in a letter to the editor of Der Nordschleswiger. On 15 October 1970, the paper apparently featured an article about the establishment of a German-minority student association in Aarhus, mentioning the question of female membership in VSSt. Siegfried Christiansen wrote to the editor of Der Nordschleswiger, in reaction to the article: In no way is it true that a majority of the students in Copenhagen were against female membership. On 9 November 1969, after very intense preparations lasting almost one year, the members of VSSt in Copenhagen approved the proposed revisions of the statutes with four-fifths majority (15 yes; 3 no; 0 abstained). The most important revision was the equality of girls in the association … On 27 April 1970 the ‘Bundesconvent’ met in Aabenraa, where memberships for girls were rejected with 19 votes against it; 14 votes for it and 1 abstaining.45

Showing his frustration with the course of events and with the fraternity alumni, Christiansen continued: The fraternity alumni, much concerned about keeping up traditions, whose most important contribution to the association is that they pay their membership fee and gather annually for our Christmas gettogether, are convinced that they serve the association best by rejecting the very thoroughly prepared wishes supported by a majority of the fraternity. That, too, is democracy!46

The campaign for female membership did not end with Siegfried Christiansen’s resignation as first speaker. In the autumn of 1970, Merete Bjørn Hanssen visited the fraternity again to talk about ‘the place of women in society’. The semester report, until now always a very sober piece of writing, includes the sarcastic comment that her lecture ‘could have been relevant for some of the fraternity alumni too’. In general, the autumn 1970 semester report is more direct than ever before. The report complains about the fact that the alumni had been unwilling to discuss again what the report called ‘a question of survival’. The fraternity wrote: We constantly find that potential members of our association, for example, the graduating class of the secondary school in Aabenraa, do not understand the exclusion of girls and are surprised that this even exists in our time. Therefore, we would like to discuss this with the alumni and reach a solution that is satisfactory for everybody. We cannot expect our association to survive, if we do not quickly reach a solution.47

220 • Beyond the Border

Paradoxically, the report is correct in both assumptions: first, that the gender question would be solved and second, that the existence of the association itself was under threat. In 1971, ‘a temporary solution’ was reached with the fraternity alumni; girls were allowed to participate fully in all activities, although their memberships of VSSt would not transfer them automatically to the alumni after graduation.48 In the spring of 1971, Hanna Feddersen became the first female member,49 and in the autumn Helga Jürgensen followed.50 In 1972, the latter became second speaker of the association.51 The whole issue was eventually resolved when, in 1973, the old VSSt was dissolved and a new association with new statutes was shaped. Yet by now, the fraternity had also concluded that ‘in its current form, VSSt [functioned] badly or not at all’. A group had decided to form a new association of which ‘all North Schleswigers could become members regardless of whether they were students or not’.52 The question of female membership, and the frustration of the fraternity with the alumni, was not the only reason that VSSt was under threat. Where previously the fraternity had organised activities every Friday, the only scheduled activity in March 1971, for example, was a film night, showing Roman Polanski’s Repulsion.53 In April, there were no planned activities and the monthly invitation reads: ‘nothing planned! Whoever wants to can drop by for a beer and a chat’.54 In the autumn of 1971, the fraternity reported that ‘a generational change [was] taking place’, and that ‘a decline in the activities’ was starting to show.55 In the spring of 1972, VSSt wrote that ‘lecture nights [were] not as popular as previously’ and that ‘the lecturer–listener relationship should change to become more of a dialogue, so that the individual could play a bigger part’. The association therefore decided to focus more on ‘social activities’.56 Such focus, however, was unsuccessful too. In an undated circular from 1974, the association – now named Collegium 1961 – wrote that only the film club had been a success, albeit a modest one too. Collegium 1961 wrote that ‘but also for film nights and parties, more people have to show up if we want to survive. So in the new year, please us with your presence and your ideas’.57 The days of an active and vibrant German-minority student association in Copenhagen were over. The case of VSSt reveals several dimensions about German-minority youths in the late 1960s and early 1970s. First, the dynamics between youths and the minority establishment changed, but the positions of neither group were all-encompassing. Not all fraternity brothers were for female membership when the fraternity began discussing the question: even in 1969, a few still voted against it. By the same token,

Young People of Their Time? • 221

the position of the minority establishment was incoherent too: the fraternity alumni did not allow the fraternity to change the statutes of VSSt, despite the fact that the new chairman of Jugendverband, Hans Jürgen Nissen, had called unequivocally for letting young people decide the nature of their own activities themselves. Nissen wrote his statement in Volkskalender precisely as the process of changing the statutes took place. His position must have seemed hypocritical, in particular to Siegfried Christiansen and others, who had worked hard, over a long period of time, to try to change the statutes in a way that followed the legitimate customs within the association. Second, there was the way in which the attempted changes took place. While members of the fraternity were inspired by progressive contemporary trends, inviting a women’s rights activist and avantgarde designer to lecture, they did not adopt a revolutionary discourse. While VSSt clearly strayed from topics traditionally occupying the association and the majority in general, they followed the conventions and attempted to change their fraternity following the legitimate conventions. When, on the other hand, their efforts proved to be unsuccessful, it seems that the most engaged and active students left the minority association. This was a direct consequence of the alumni’s unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts and genuine wishes of the fraternity. Third, the fact that activity levels dropped showed that VSSt relied on the dedication of a few individuals. The association did not survive when core individuals stopped organising activities and inviting guest speakers. Moreover, it seemed that, as the connection to being a minority was dropped completely and the association focused only on social aspects, the appeal to young people diminished. Perhaps German-minority youths found it unnecessary to socialise with other minority young people, if the national connection was no longer nourished, or perhaps they continued to socialise outside the framework of Collegium 1961. The fact remains that unscheduled activities were less popular than the scheduled ones, which had been rooted in association activities. Finally, the case of VSSt shows that the group of minority youths most influenced by progressive ideas of wider society came from well within the minority elite. The students active in VSSt were graduates of the secondary school in Aabenraa, and often were even the sons of men in high minority positions. Their stay in Copenhagen possibly inspired engagement with questions such as gender equality, and they attempted to bring these ideas into the German-minority sphere. The fact that they were unable to change the old association to better fit

222 • Beyond the Border

society of the early 1970s, eventually contributed to the abandonment of leading individuals on which the association was too dependent.

Global Youth in South Schleswig? War, Human Rights and Rebellion(s) More global conflicts did not exist in the late 1960s than before; but young people began discussing and relating themselves to such conflicts in a different way. From 1967 onwards, global issues were discussed frequently among Danish-minority youths. Furthermore, young people began taking a clear stand. In particular, the war in Vietnam was discussed intensively in both Vulkanen and Treklangen, but also the fight for independence in Mozambique was debated in Treklangen,58 and the Arab–Israeli war was debated in Vulkanen.59 The discussions of these conflicts were of course significant in their own right because they show that Danish-minority youths now took an interest in global issues. What is more, young people engaged with conflicts unrelated to the border region, without drawing any parallels to the situation at home. The absence of references to the local historical conflicts between Denmark and Germany represented a new way of thinking. It emphasises that some minority youths perceived the local conflict to be less relevant than global ones. In particular, Vietnam also influenced young people in other ways. Growing anti-militarism and a focus on human rights activism became other topics of frequent discussions in Danish-minority youth publications. Initially, Vietnam was discussed in a relatively calm way. Over time, however, the discussions assumed a more uncompromising style. In 1967, for example, Henry Hennigs wrote that ‘[he] did not intend to be vague about [his] personal views and [he] applaud[ed] the professors from Aarhus who prostest[ed] against the bombings in North Vietnam’.60 In the following issue, however, an anonymous contribution opposed Hennigs and argued that the US bombings in Vietnam were only strategic.61 Finally, in December 1967, Gunnar Tessin wrote a long and detailed article about the escalations in Vietnam, without taking any particular position for or against.62 Vietnam was discussed in Treklangen too, for example in June 1968, in a long article discussing the human tragedies of the war.63 The anti-war sentiments of young people revitalised the debate about military service, albeit in a different way than in the late 1950s when West Germany joined NATO and reintroduced military service for young men. Back then, Danish-minority youths had generally

Young People of Their Time?  •  223

accepted military service as the necessary consequence of the Cold War order. The global conflicts some fifteen years later, however, led to a significant shift in how the military and military service was discussed. Young people began distancing themselves from the previously dominating consensus that a strong military in the West was a necessity for security. The opposition to military service was particularly vocal. In 1970, student Rolf Küssner wrote in Treklangen: Year after year the number of ‘military refusers’ increases and this is hardly a coincidence. On a daily basis we are confronted with the epitome of pointlessness that is the Vietnam War. Day in and day out they try to tell us that continuous armament, the NATO pact and the like is a prerequisite for peace.64

Küssner continued and elaborated on what – according to him – young people thought of military service: We are no longer interested in an 18-month course in NPD propaganda;65 ‘The German Soldier’ is no longer an idol for the youth and the slogan ‘better dead than red’ [hellere død end rød (Danish); besser tot als rot (German)] has been replaced in the American hippie colonies with ‘make love not war.66

In Vulkanen, military service was debated as well and in March 1970, one student argued: Everybody participates in the arms race – all us wealthy nations – and we silence the people with pop and propaganda. Pin-ups and patriotism are the people’s soothers and fear makes us deaf to the rattling of arms that in turn silences those who suffer. ‘We would like to help you, but we cannot do so because the enemy would conquer us if we did’. The excuses are the same – East and West.67

These arguments in Vulkanen and Treklangen differ notably from those presented in earlier discussions of the West German army and of East–West relations. Küssner’s description of West German military service as right-wing nationalist propaganda does not match earlier accounts of the West German military as nationally unimposing and less ‘nationalistic’ than the Danish minority overall.68 The position, that the Soviet Union did not in reality pose a real threat to society, was a new one too. The debate about war continued in Treklangen, and the March 1972 issue was dedicated entirely to it and to anti-war sentiments. In comparison to the articles from 1967 and 1968, a much more confrontational style characterised the special issue. Among others, R. Broby Johannsen argued that ‘war [could] only be abolished by abolishing class society’;69 Steffen Buch argued that ‘one ought to

224  •  Beyond the Border

disseminate “a religion of peace”’70; and Rolf Küssner argued against the Vietnam War again, this time in an even more hostile fashion. He wrote: What the hell do the Americans want in Vietnam? To help the oppressed? Save them from communism? Slaughter them in order to save them, and then be cynical enough to name them victims of freedom and democracy. All the while the Americans keep their productions going through the arms industry. My God! They would be bloody bankrupt if they could not play war from time to time.71

Only after this special issue on war and anti-war sentiments, did someone object to the way in which the topic was debated. Kai L. Nielsen accused Treklangen of being too one-sided, arguing that ‘as a soldier one [could] use one’s critical sense and contribute to the creation of an army which [could] not be abused’.72 He also added, however, that he believed that ‘all psychologically healthy humans hate[d] and fear[ed] the war’.73 In addition to opposing war and the military, young people also became interested in the international protection of human rights, in particular in the work of Amnesty International.74 In 1968, DuborgSkolen student Kurt Johannsen wrote about Amnesty International in Vulkanen and emphasised the fact that the organisation helped anyone, regardless of their political persuasion, race or religion. Kurt Johannsen elaborated: Is this not exactly what we are fighting against? This intolerance and these prejudices? Or is it only something we claim? Here we have a concrete task, through which we can realise our values! If anyone should be interested in this and wish to form an Amnesty group, they can come to me for more information.75

Some months later, Kurt Johannsen wrote about human rights again. This time he lashed out against the celebrations of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ twentieth anniversary in December 1968. Johannsen asked: ´But what were they celebrating? What have we achieved in those twenty years? Is it too harsh to say nothing?’76 Regarding Article 1 of the Declaration – that all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights – Johannsen asked: ‘who does not think of white racial fanatics in the United States and other countries and their disregard for this article?’77 Students at Duborg-Skolen even formed an Amnesty International group. In April 1969, the group organised and hosted a party in order to raise money for the organisation. The group wrote in Vulkanen:

Young People of Their Time? • 225

We are very happy to have experienced such great interest in this party from both teachers and students, and we are happy to announce that the party raised 400 German Marks, with which we are able to help people who are imprisoned due to their race, religion or political observations.78

Besides organising parties, the Amnesty group also supported three prisoners: a young Portuguese journalist and an Indonesian married couple, all three imprisoned because of their political beliefs. The group wrote about it in Vulkanen that they attempted to ‘help these people by exchanging letters with them and their families’.79 Young people’s interest in global political issues represented a significant change. The focus on global conflicts and issues verified that Danish-minority students and youths also began to shift their political interest away from the border region and Danish–German relations. The absence of all references to the region’s own contested history was striking. The fact that some Danish-minority youths took these conflicts upon themselves and made it their own cause, show that they no longer considered the Danish–German questions to be as relevant as what went on elsewhere in the world. The interests of Danish-minority youths had indeed become globalised. What is more, the youth association Flensborg Ungdomsforening (FUF) copied the style and rhetoric of the ‘1968’ youth rebellions. The rebellion in FUF mirrored the youth rebellions taking place elsewhere in Europe in the late 1960. Led by only a handful of youths from Flensburg, the rebellion was loud and provocative even if, eventually, it did not permanently alter any minority institutions other than FUF itself. The only one of its kind in South Schleswig, the rebellion was not as such representative of Danish-minority youth. Nevertheless, it demonstrated, first, that global youth behaviour was present in South Schleswig and, second, that young people were capable of claiming the institutions that they felt were created for them but did not represent them. Hitherto, these organisations were often operated by the established organisations and their leaders, who were generally not that young. Whereas FUF may have been one of South Schleswig’s oldest Danish youth associations, it was neither the largest nor the most influential one. The scope and nature of the activities taking place in the association had changed considerably over its fifty years of existence, between 1919 and 1969. According to an article in Flensborg Avis, FUF had ‘struggled for its existence’ in 196380 and in 1968/69, FUF reported that they had eighty members, out of whom seventytwo were over the age of twenty-five and only eight were under.81 It

226  •  Beyond the Border

reported that twenty-two members were active in the choir, and that nineteen participated in club evenings.82 In other words, FUF was far from the largest youth association in South Schleswig, Before 1969, FUF was not representative of young people’s global interests as discussed above either. The repertoire of the association’s choir, for example, did not reflect most young people’s general interest in international, popular music. In the spring of 1969, for example, the choir participated in a competition for Danish choirs, performing three songs, all of which were of the typical patriotic Danish nature that characterised the vast amount of Danish songs composed in the nineteenth century. One of the songs performed at the contest was the nationally romantic hymn ‘I Danmark er jeg født’ (‘I was born in Denmark’) by Hans Christian Andersen, composed in 1850.83 By the time the rebellion took place in 1969, FUF had just celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. Prior to the anniversary, chairman Karl Heinrich Zeuch (born 1938), wrote to all the members of FUF that the occasion would mark the celebration of ‘the oldest Danish youth organisation in South Schleswig which [had] been of great influence since it was founded’.84 But the celebration of the anniversary – as it was reported in Flensborg Avis – did not resemble a celebration of a youthful association: the former editor of Flensborg Avis, Jacob Kronika, spoke

Figure 7.1 The former FUF choir, early 1970s. Courtesy Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

Young People of Their Time? • 227

about his youth around the time of the First World War;85 moreover, photos in Flensborg Avis and Südschleswigsche Heimatzeitung indicated that the average age of the guests was considerably higher than what could be expected in an association for youths.86 Evidently, as Karl Heinrich Zeuch said in his speech, FUF needed to aim to find new ways of appealing to youths. He mentioned ‘the disturbances caused by young people in all of Europe’ and that ‘it would be ignorant to think all that [was] happening in the world and in particular in Western Europe would not influence youths in South Schleswig’.87 Zeuch was much more accurate than he would have liked to be. The rebellion in FUF took place in late April and early May 1969 and its unfolding can be traced in the FUF archive and in the debate pages of Flensborg Avis. On 30 April 1969, Flensborg Avis wrote that a new board had taken control of FUF and that all the new members were under twenty-one. The paper wrote that one member had proclaimed: ‘FUF should be an association for young people and not a “chicken breeders” association’, most of the members being over 30’.88 According to Flensborg Avis, the same new member had called the main Danish-minority organisation, SSF, ‘a retirement home’.89 Subsequently, the new board excluded all members over the age of 30 and the disagreements between the new board and the former choir were discussed publicly in Flensborg Avis over the coming days. On 2 May 1969, the new board and the former choir both had articles in Flensborg Avis. The new board wrote: The choir-singing of the old ones does not belong in FUF! If young people do not wish to waste their time on singing national songs, why not get rid of the choir, which is only an extra expense for FUF. Old people over thirty do not belong in a youth association anyway. Youth associations can only be led by young people. For too long, FUF has been in the hands of oldies who have run the association to the ground. The association has long been dead. There will be no funeral. Resurrection will follow!90

Opposing these claims, the members of the choir argued that they wanted to be separated from FUF because they felt ‘harassed by the new board’.91 Furthermore, they argued that the choir had actually contributed ‘to renewal in the border region by not only singing national songs’. Regarding the traditional repertoire, however, the choir argued that ‘the old songs [were] as meaningful to [them] as beat [was] to the younger generations’.92 The new board in FUF clearly adopted some of the characteristics of the rebellious global youth movement. They used the same direct language and exaggerated their reasons for rebelling. The decision

228  •  Beyond the Border

to exclude all members over thirty also resonated with the ‘Don’t trust anyone over thirty’ slogan of other youth movements. In West Germany specifically, the slogan furthermore referred to the fact that the younger generations had begun questioning the older generation’s involvement in the Second World War,93 which evidently did not apply to the former members of FUF. The reactions to the rebellion in FUF varied. Karl Heinrich Zeuch wrote in Flensborg Avis that ‘the rebels attempt[ed] to knock down doors that were already open’.94 He accused the new board of ‘telling half-truths’ when arguing, for example, that the choir was an expense to FUF. Overall, Zeuch appeared to not really understand what the rebels were actually so angry about. Another excluded member, however, was less tolerant and asked ironically in Flensborg Avis: Should we thank the oldies for what they have done for the illustrious association? No, that would be stupid! The words ‘thank you’ and ‘reverence’, not to mention tolerance of those who think differently are all unknown to young people of today.95

Support of the rebels, however, could also be found among older people. Heinrich Nissen, for example, wrote that he ‘understood’ the new board of FUF and he wished them ‘good luck’. He added to this, however, that he believed seeking a compromise with the members over thirty would have been more appropriate than exclusion.96 The new members of FUF had two main objectives. First, they wanted to participate in activities that were organised by and interesting to young people. Second, they wished to change the statutes of the association and turn it into a grassroots one for young people only. FUF actually succeeded in organising the activities that young people requested. In January 1970, FUF, together with the youth association from Sandbjerg, the neighbouring town, organised a ‘Folklore Night’, which – according to Flensborg Avis – ‘appealed to young people’.97 The paper wrote that ‘protest songs, folk songs, and good guitar playing satisfied the picky, young audience … [who] felt at home on the floor of the theatre hall where they had camped’.98 Some months later, in April 1970, Flensborg Avis wrote that FUF had organised ‘its fourth “Folklore Night” [and that] this time the number of participants broke all records. Roughly 200 people were present [and they] listen[ed] to folk and protest songs’.99 The night supposedly began with a ‘joint “jam session” of the tunes ‘Blowing in the Wind’ and ‘When the Saints’.100 Finally, in October 1971, Flensborg Avis wrote that around five hundred youths had gathered in the minority’s grand hall in Flensburg to attend a beat concert with several bands from

Young People of Their Time? • 229

Figure 7.2 FUF rock concert flyer, early 1970s. Arkivet ved Dansk Centralbibliotek for Sydslesvig (ADCB).

230  •  Beyond the Border

Flensburg and Schleswig-Holstein, all organised by FUF.101 The fact that FUF managed to organise these events, which were attended by such a large number of youths, indicated the nature of activities that really interested young people by the early 1970s. More so than before the rebellion, the association now truly engaged a large amount of young people. In terms of changing the structure of FUF and discussing questions directly related to the minority, however, the successes of FUF were more modest. Documents in FUF’s archive as well as articles in Flensborg Avis about these aspects of the association’s activities indicate that quite quickly after May 1969 the activity levels dropped. A circular called all members of FUF to a meeting about ‘group work, “the Annual Meeting” and a new “Youth Week” concept’.102 The circular mentioned that ‘already in the spring [FUF] wanted to form some working groups but this [had] not happened yet’. In addition, the new board of FUF urged the members to complete and return a questionnaire, which had been sent out with a previous circular. The board wrote: ‘Why are you procrastinating? Only one-sixth of members have responded. Is it so difficult to do?’103 In August 1970, Flensborg Avis wrote about a meeting in FUF where the future structure of FUF had been debated. According to Flensborg Avis, the new chairman of FUF, Bent Christensen, argued against any kind of structure, preferring that FUF was operated as a commune or allowed to dissolve. Another member of FUF, Ingolf Julius, answered that it would be desirable to operate the association like a commune but, at the same time, he believed it would lead to anarchy.104 In October 1970, FUF proclaimed that it had adopted new statutes, comprising only two paragraphs. The first paragraph established that FUF existed and was connected to the Danish minority. The second paragraph said that ‘everything concerning the association (purpose, activities, administration, and more), active members are free to define and solve according to their own opinions’.105 Young people made these global causes their own, and discussed them without reference to Danish– German issues. Danish-minority youths in FUF also rebelled against the association in its current form and changed it according to their own wishes. The ways in which the rebellion was organised clearly resonated with young people’s rebellions elsewhere in Europe. Although many did not agree with the new board in FUF, overall the Danish minority accepted the decision of young people to let them organise FUF in a way that suited young people. Where FUF’s attempts to change the ‘Annual Meeting’ and the ‘Youth Week’ were unsuccessful, the folklore

Young People of Their Time?  •  231

nights in Flensburg were a huge success. In essence, the Danishminority establishment seemed to accept that, by 1970, being a young Danish South Schleswiger had also become about taking part in the international youth culture of rebellion. But despite the minority establishment’s acceptance of rebellion and the angry sentiments in youth publications, some views were still unacceptable in 1970. Marking the fiftieth year of North Schleswig’s reunification with Denmark, a representative of the younger generation was invited to speak at the 1970 commemorations in Dybbøl, just north of the border. The speaker, Povl Leckband, a native of Flensburg and a Duborg-Skolen graduate had since studied in Copenhagen, where he had also been the chairman of FSS. During an oral history interview in 2016, Povl Leckband described himself as a Danish-minority poster boy, his family descending from the pre-1945 Danish-minority core in Flensburg.106 Leckband’s speech caused uproar, although its content was less controversial than the reactions to it indicated. Leckband pointed out what young people had already discussed for some years in FSS-Nyt and elsewhere. He stated that the border struggle was redundant, and he questioned whether ‘the Danish effort’ was still relevant in its current form. He asserted that young people no longer perceived the struggle between Danes and Germans to be relevant in 1970. In 2016, Leckband described the consequences of his speech: I might as well have committed political suicide because I did not say what I was supposed to say according to the common views at the time … Today, I cannot see what they all got so angry about, but the timing probably was not right.107

The contemporaneous reactions justify Leckband’s recollections. In both Flensborg Avis as well as in Danish media, representatives spoke out against Leckband’s points. In the Copenhagen-based newspaper, Berlingske Tidende, for example, the author Willy-August Linnemann wrote: Why did all the speakers in Dybbøl refrain from telling the truth about what really is happening in the border region, including north of Kongeåen [pre-1920 Denmark]: it is not the Germans or German-ness who are the real enemies of Danes and Danish-ness. Today, the Danes and Germans have the same treacherous enemy: that is the indifference to national problems.108

In Flensborg Avis, Iver Callø, a former Danish-minority politician argued along similar lines:

232  •  Beyond the Border

I think that throughout all these years the Germans did Danish-ness a favour by treating the Danes the way they did. Back then there was no risk of being lulled to sleep. A warm and good relationship between the two minorities in the border region comes at too high a price when the consequence is a lack of Danish national consciousness in young people.109

P. Kragelund wrote in Flensborg Avis, that Povl Leckband’s views were ‘only shared by very few people’.110 He added: How one knows this tone of voice, this intolerance and these accusations. One is tempted to brush it off when relatively immature students express their unbelievable views. But it is essentially horrible that that a young South Schleswiger, who has actually finished his studies and who is not just a recent secondary school graduate, launches such attacks, accusations and insinuations on such an occasion.111

Finally, the Jutland daily, Jydske Tidende, reported that Jacob Kronika had said at a meeting for Danish veterans of the First World War that ‘if these words [were] representative of the thoughts and feelings of the Danish youth on both sides of the border, the older generation [was] forced to see that as a second and voluntary defeat at Dybbøl’. 112 In other words, Kronika compared Leckband’s speech in 1970 with Denmark’s defeat in 1864, when Schleswig and Holstein were lost to Germany. Clearly, all four representatives of the older generation were angered with Leckband’s speech. Furthermore, the fact that the speech was delivered in Dybbøl at the memorial day most likely intensified the critical reactions. It was one thing to debate such issues in FSSNyt or Treklangen; being critical of the Danish minority in a place like Dybbøl, however, was too much for some people. But not everybody raged against Leckband. The editor of the Danish daily, Kristeligt Dagblad, for example, wrote to Jacob Kronika to explain that ‘[he] [understood] why the older generation [felt] forced to react but that, to young people, talking and singing about ‘the battle’ no longer [made] sense to them.113 Siegfred Andresen, a headmaster of the Danish school in Bredsted, wrote in Flensborg Avis that instead of focusing on the generational conflict, the purpose should be to seek a personal rather than an actual reunification with Denmark.114 And finally, Ellen Andresen, the wife of a school teacher in a Danish school in South Schleswig, wrote that the older generation should stop romanticising about the past and realise that times had changed.115 By 1970, times had indeed changed. Although Kragelund argued that only a few young people shared Leckband’s views, nothing suggests that this was true. No articles by young people in Treklangen,

Young People of Their Time?  •  233

Vulkanen or elsewhere objected to the speech. Even Kronika actually admitted it in a private letter to a friend. He wrote: Lately, I have received quite a few letters about the speech in Dybbøl, including letters from young people. These letters also contain similar thoughts, and they hurt an old South Schleswiger like me; they tell me that we have failed to be understood by many of our brightest young people.116

In reality, young people did not only have different opinions on the national questions; they had ceased to take the same interest in them as the previous generation. Shortly after the Danish-minority establishment objected so harshly to Leckband’s speech, the small group of young people who were actually engaged with minority issues, FSS, the organisation of university students, ceased its activities. Closing down in 1971, the fate of FSS resembled that of VSSt. Both were important minority-youth institutions and both had been strong youthful voices in the minority debates throughout the 1960s. With the closing down of the two organisations an era had come to an end. Overall, minority youths in the late 1960s and early 1970s did not form a coherent group. Some youths, like members of FUF, were clearly inspired by the contemporaneous rebellious practices; similarly, others opposed the Vietnam War or argued for human rights, using the rhetoric common among young people elsewhere. Minority youths adopted other ideas of the time too: VSSt could no longer accept that their association excluded young women, but in attempting to change their association, they followed all conventions. By 1971, however, two characteristics of the Danish- and German-minority youth had become very clear: first of all, the old national contestation between Danes and Germans was now nowhere to be found in the spheres of minority youths; second, young people asserted their opinions freely, and they pursued the ideas and principles they believed in.

Notes  1. See for example, Anderson, ‘1968’; Davis et al., Changing the World; Dussel, ‘The Triumph of English-language Pop Music’; Gassert, ‘Narratives of Democratization’; Hall, ‘Protest Movements in the 1970s’; Hinz, ‘”1968” in Context’; Schissler, ‘Rebels in Search of a Cause’; and Siegfried, ‘Music and Protest in 1960s Europe’.  2. Siegfried, ‘Understanding 1968’.   3. Bracke, ‘One-dimentional Conflict?’, 339; Warring, ‘Around 1968’.

234  •  Beyond the Border

  4. Hijiya, ‘The Conservative 1960s’.  5. Paul Koopmann, ‘Im Wandel der Zeit’ in Heimatverbunden, Festschrift, 46.   6. Lubowitz, 100 Jahre Nordschleswigscher Volkshochschulverein, 246.  7. Ibid., 254.   8. Die Brücke (January 1967), 2. ‘Hans Lindemann: Deutsche Ju  gendarbeit in Nordschleswig’.  9. Die Brücke (September 1968), 3–4. ‘Der Brief an die Tochter: Eine Geschichte für junge Leute’. 10. For a discussion of cultural identities, including Gammler and Halbsterken identities, in West Germany, see: Maase, “Establishing Cultural Democracy’, 435–41. 11. Die Brücke (September 1968), 4–9. ‘Joachim Oertel: Junge Menschen und ihre Vorbilder’. 12. Ibid. 13. Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig (1970), 108–10. ‘Hans Jürgen Nissen: Zwischenbemerkungen anstelle eines Jahresberichtes, Deutscher Jugendverband für Nordschleswig’. 14. Ibid. 15. Evans, ‘Sons, Daughters, and Patriarchy’. 16. Ibid. 17. DMN: FC: ‘Nachschule Tingleff’ (1961). 18. Koopmann, ‘Im Wandel der Zeit’ in Heimatverbunden, Festschrift, 41. 19. Ibid. 20. Die Brücke (January 1967), 5. ‘Cornelius Tästensen: Jugend und Gemeinschaft – Fragen der Verantwortung für einander’. 21. Ibid. 22. OHI: TWS (31 March 2015): German-minority female born 1958. 23. Johannsen, ‘”Collegium 1961”. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. SC: Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten [hereafter VSSt]: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1963’. 27. See Chapter 4. 28. Ibid. 29. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1964’. 30. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1965’. 31. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1967’. 32. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1967’. 33. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1968’. 34. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1969’. 35. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1969’. 36. Ibid. 37. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1968’. 38. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1969’. 39. SC: VSSt: ‘Letter from Siegfried Christiansen to Bent Visti’ (3 December 1969). 40. SC: VSSt: ‘Invitation to activities in Collegium 1961’ (11 March 1970).

Young People of Their Time?  •  235

41. SC: VSSt: ‘Letter from Siegfried Christiansen to Merete Bjørn Hanssen’ (24 November 1969). 42. Ibid. 43. SC: VSSt: ‘Invitation to activities in Collegium 1961’ (19 January 1970). 44. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1970’. 45. SC: VSSt: ‘Letter from Siegfried Christiansen to the editor of Der Nordschleswiger’ (17 October 1970). 46. Ibid. 47. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1970’. 48. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1971’. 49. Ibid. 50. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1971’. 51. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1972’. 52. SC: VSSt: ‘Letter from VSSt to “members and friends”’ (14 October 1973). 53. SC: VSSt: ‘Invitation to activities in Collegium 1961’ (16 March 1971). 54. SC: VSSt: ‘Invitation to activities in Collegium 1961’. (14 April 1971). 55. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Herbstsemester 1971’. 56. SC: VSSt: ‘Semesterbericht über das Frühjahrssemester 1972’. 57. SC: VSSt: ‘Circular to “members and friends”’ (1974). 58. Treklangen (December/January 1971/72), 167–68. ‘Hans Kornø Rasmussen, Viggo Berthelsen: Mocambique’. 59. Vulkanen (October 1967), 9–11. ‘Henry Hennigs: Quo Vadis – Israel?’. 60. Vulkanen (June/July 1967), 8–11. ‘Henry Hennigs: Vietnam’. 61. Vulkanen (October 1967), 12–13. ‘Svar på Henry Hennigs’ Vietnam-artikel’. 62. Vulkanen (December 1967), 10–11. ‘Gunnar Tessin: Yderligere eskalation i Vietnam’. 63. Treklangen (June 1968), 43. ‘Vietnam?’. 64. Treklangen (May 1970), 32–33. ‘Rolf Küssner: Soldat eller militærnægter?’. 65. NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands) was a far-right West German political party founded in 1964. 66. Treklangen (1970). ‘Küssner’. 67. Vulkanen (March 1970), 21–22. ‘Ålund-Gossip, Militærnægter?’. 68. See Chapters 2 and 6. 69. Treklangen (March 1972), 6–8. ‘R. Broby Johannsen: Hvad er krig?’. 70. Treklangen (March 1972), 10. ‘Steffen Buch: Militærnægter hvorfor?’. 71. Treklangen (March 1972), 11–12. ‘Rolf Küssner: Jeg nægter’. 72. Treklangen (April 1972), 15. ‘Kai L. Nielsen: Replik: Soldat eller nægter?’. 73. Ibid. 74. The historian Ann Marie Clark argues that Amnesty International, founded in London in 1961, filled a void in that no nations were willing to hold states accountable for violations of human rights. Clark explains that Amnesty focused on ‘the prisoner of conscience’, thus ‘any person who is physically restrained form expressing his opinion’. See: Clark, Diplomacy of Conscience, 12.  75. Vulkanen (July 1968), 6–8. ‘Kurt Johannsen, Amnesty International’.   76. Vulkanen (December 1968), 5–6. ‘Kurt Johannsen, Menneskerettighederne’.  77. Ibid.

236  •  Beyond the Border

  78. Vulkanen (April 1969), 33–34. ‘M.N. Germany 114: Amnesty nr. 1’.  79. Ibid.   80. Flensborg Avis (6 March 1963). ‘En lille, sammentømret flok kæmper for en ungdomsforenings eksistens’.   81. DCBS: F 141–60: FUF: ‘Årsberetning: Flensborg Ungdomsforening’ (1968/1969).   82. Ibid.   83. Flensborg Avis (17 Marvh 1969). ‘FU’s kor deltog i sangdyst i Århus’.   84. DCBS: F 141–60: FUF: ‘Karl Heinrich Zeuch, Invitation til møde’.   85. Flensborg Avis (8 April 1969). ‘Vi må finde en aktuel form’.   86. Ibid. and Südschleswigsche Heimatszeitung (8 April 1969).   87. Flensborg Avis (8 April 1969). ‘Vi må finde en aktuel form’.   88. Flensborg Avis (30 April 1969). ‘Aktivister skal lede ungdomsforeningen’.   89. Ibid.  90. Flensborg Avis (1 May 1969). ‘Bestyrelsen: Gamle FUF’s død!’.  91. Flensborg Avis (2 May 1969). ‘Ungdomskoret: Ungdomskoret vil nu stå på egne ben’.  92. Flensborg Avis (5 May 1069). ‘A. Jakobsen: Farvel og tak’.   93. Siegfried, ‘”Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?”’.   94. Flensborg Avis (8 May 1969). ‘K.H. Zeuch: Hvad er man vred på?’.  95. Flensborg Avis (5 May 1968). ‘E.P. (En af oldingene): Smid oldingene ud!’.   96. Flensborg Avis (7 May 1969). ‘Heinrich Nissen: Lad være med at slagte gode (oldinge) malkekøer!’.  97. Flensborg Avis (24 January1970). ‘It: Protestsange, grafik og humør i ”Hjemmet”’.   98. Ibid.  99. Flensborg Avis (27 April 1970). ‘S: 200 til folkloreaften’. 100. Ibid. 101. Flensborg Avis (21 October 1971). ‘K.P.K.: Rock-festivalen på Flensborghus’. 102. DCBS: F 141–60: FUF: ‘FUF Bestyrelse: Rundskrivelse’ (No Date – most likely from after 21 August 1969 and before 1 December 1969). 103. Ibid. 104. Flensborg Avis (26 August 1970). ’Ham, Kassenøglerne var borte’. 105. DCBS: F 141–60: FUF: ‘FUF Meddeler’ (10 Oct. 1970). 106. OHI: TWS (16 February 2016): Danish-minority male born 1946. 107. Ibid. 108. Berlingske Tidende (14 July 1970). ‘Willy-August Linnemann: Er der noget i vejen med det danske folk?’. 109. Flensborg Avis (5 October 1970). ‘Iver Callø: Vi gamle og de unge’. 110. Flensborg Avis (3 September 1970). ‘P. Kragelund: En kedelig fejltagelse’. 111. Ibid. 112. Jydske Tidende (4 August 1970). ‘Vi oplever Dybbøl-nederlag nummer to’. 113. DCBS: P 29–22: ‘Jacob Kronika: Sager vedr. Sydslesvigsk politik, kulturelle forhold og historie 1917–81’ [hereafter JK]: ‘Letter from the editor in chief of Kristeligt Dagblad to Jacob Kronika’ (19 July 1970). 114. Flensborg Avis (19 July 1970). ‘Siegfred Andresen: En fællesnævner for vor brogede flok’.

Young People of Their Time?  •  237

115. Flensborg Avis (12 September 1970). ‘Ellen Andresen: Om at huske at takke’. 116. DCBS: P 29–22: JK: ‘Letter from Jacob Kronika to Hans Roland’ (15 September 1970).

Bibliography Anderson, T.H. ‘1968: The American and Scandinavian Experiences’. Scandinavian Journal of History 33, no. 4 (2008): 491–99. Bracke, Maud Anne. ‘One-dimentional Conflict? Recent Scholarship on 1968 and the Limitations of the Generation Concept’. Journal of Contemporary History 47 (2012): 638–45. Clark, Ann Marie. Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001. Davis, Belinda, Wilfred Mausbach, Martin Klimke and Carla MacDougal, eds. Changing the World, Changing Oneself: Political Protest and Collective Identities in West Germany and the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s. New York: Berghahn Books, 2010. Dussel, Konrad. ‘The Triumph of English-language Pop Music: West German Radio Programming’. In Between Marx and Coca-Cola: Youth Cultures in Changing European societies, 1960–1980, edited by Axel Schildt and Detlef Siegfried, 127–45. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. Evans, Sara M. ‘Sons, Daughters, and Patriarchy: Gender and the 1968 Generation’. American Historical Review 114, no. 2 (2009): 331–47. Gassert, Philipp. ‘Narratives of Democratization: 1968 in Europe’. In 1968 in Europe: A History of Protest and Activism, 1956–1977 edited by Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth, 307–24. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Hall, Simon. ‘Protest Movements in the 1970s: The Long 1960s’. Journal of Contemporary History 43, no. 4 (2008): 655–72. Heimatverbunden. Festschrift zum 25järigen Bestehen der NachschuleJugenvolkshochschule in Tingleff. Aabenraa: H. Mordieck, 1976. Hijiya, James A. ‘The Conservative 1960s’. Journal of American Studies 37, no. 2 (2003): 201–27. Hinz, U.T.A. ‘“1968” in Context: Protest Movements in the 1960s’. Contemporary European History 20, no. 2 (2011): 233–42. Johannsen, Peter Iver. ‘“Collegium 1961” i Hellerup: Det tyske mindretals studenterkollegium i København’. Sønderjysk Månedsskrift, no. 2 (2013): 62–65. Lubowitz, Frank. 100 Jahre Nordschleswigscher Volkshochschulverein. Aabenraa: Heimatkundliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft, 2005. Maase, Kaspar. ‘Establishing Cultural Democracy: Youth, “Americanisation”, and the Irresistible Rise of of Popular Culture’. In The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949–1968, edited by Hanna Schissler, 428–50. Princeton: Princeton University Press 2001.

238  •  Beyond the Border

Schissler, Hanna. ‘Rebels in Search of a Cause’. In The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949–1968, edited by Hanna Schissler, 459–67. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Siegfried, Detlef. ‘“Don’t Trust Anyone Older Than 30?” Voices of Conflict and Consensus between Generations in 1960s West Germany’. Journal of Contemporary History 40, no. 4 (2005): 727–44. ———. ‘Understanding 1968: Youth Rebellion, Generational Conflict and Post-industrial Society’. In Between Marx and Coca-Cola: Youth Cultures in Changing European Societies, 1960–1980, edited by Detlef Siegfried and Axel Schildt, 59–81. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2006. ———. ‘Music and Protest in 1960s Europe’. In 1968 in Europe: A History of Protest and Activism, 1956–1977, edited by Martin Klimke and Joachim Scharloth, 57–70. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Warring, Anette. ‘Around 1968 – Danish Historiography’. Scandinavian Journal of History 33, no. 4 (2008): 353–65.

O Conclusion In many ways, the students in the class photos from 1970 were indeed different from their peers in the photos from the previous years. In other ways, however, they were not. The Danish and German minorities still existed twenty-five years after the end of the Second World War, and to young people, being minority remained an important part of their lives. Similarly, many of the institutions were the same throughout the period, as were indeed some of the individuals, such as teachers and youth leaders, who influenced the lives of young people. It was what being young and part of a minority actually entailed that changed the most. During the years between the mid 1950s and the early 1970s, the relationships between minorities and majorities changed substantially, as did the internal relationship between minority youth and the establishments. The perceptions of national belonging began to differ along generational lines. Neither establishment nor youth positions were unambiguous, but young people contested the establishment’s coreconceptualisation of national belonging. They disagreed that inherently Danes and Germans were fundamentally two distinct and different groups as well as each other’s opponent. Danish- and the Germanminority establishments held the idea that a person belonged either to one or the other nation and that loyalty towards a nation, the Danish or the German one, should not be questioned. This ideal did not fit the lived realities of many minority families on the individual level. Young people rejected that definition of national belonging, and began to formulate a new one. The new sense of belonging encompassed and appreciated both Danish and German elements, a belonging according to which being familiar and at home in two cultural spheres was an asset and not a problem. The altered sense of national belonging caused a shift in what young people perceived to be the implications of belonging to a national minority. Whereas previously both minorities had idealised national separation, both in the spheres of education and leisure time, and in

240  •  Beyond the Border

particular the Danish minority had campaigned for a change of the border and reunification with Denmark, the young generation broke with that notion. Young people did not reject the idea that belonging to a minority was important. However, they suggested that minorities should be the island upon which a bridge between the two nations could be built, as Günter Weitling formulated it; or that it made no sense to idealise the one nation and demonise the other, but rather one should take the best from both, as some Danish-minority youths argued. These changes did not happen in isolation. During this period, young people were able to assume a distinct voice because young people themselves became more clearly defined as a group. Youth as its own category of identification became important. It was not a coincidence that young people started talking about the national questions in their own way. Minority youths were quicker than their elders to sense the consequences of new political realities and they were inspired by what was going on around them, which gave them the confidence so seek the changes. The rhetoric borrowed from youth movements elsewhere, the importance of music, fashion and a growing culture for youths offered a sense of community with others who wanted to change society. It gave young people in the borderlands a platform or position from which they could challenge the establishment. In this respect, the perceived links to a community of other youths beyond rural Schleswig was crucial. In the Danish–German borderlands, young people assumed new interests and practices through which they overstepped some rigid boundaries. The first example of this concerned jazz, a form of music which both groups of young people asserted could not be subjected to national divisions. Later, similar positions were voiced in connection with young people’s interest in beat and pop music. While young people exercised their new interests openly, the feeling of leading ‘a double life’ could still be associated with pursuing an interest outside the minorities’ traditional spheres. Inspiration from abroad could also be seen in fashion. By the late 1960s, the minorities not only discussed the changed appearance of young people, but class photos from the past decade also clearly showed that young people were asserting themselves as a distinctly defined group. Some minority youths – the Danish- and German-minority students in Copenhagen – even connected over their mutual identity as minorities, stating that they might have more in common with each other than with others of their respective kin-states.

Conclusion  •  241

New young domains or spaces took shape. In contrast to previous times, young people increasingly defined what to do in such spaces themselves, and the establishments, however reluctantly, let them do it. The sense of regret about young people’s taste and wishes was triumphed by the necessity of holding onto them within a minority sphere. At Duborg-Skolen, Danish-minority youths protested against the format of the school parties, and they managed to change them. Waltzes and folk dancing were replaced with beat music and twisting competitions. In Tinglev, North Schleswig, a German-minority youth club was decorated to the taste of young people and its most popular activity was the evenings with no set programme. Both Duborg-Skolen and Jugendverband were aware that they would have to accommodate the new tastes of young people if they were to keep them affiliated with the minorities. It is important here too, however, not to see youth and non-youths as groups between which no interactions took place. The boundaries between the two were blurred, especially on the personal level. A firm threshold between spaces defined as young and adult should be challenged. It was perfectly possible, for example, to be a parent or employed full-time and, at the same time, move in spheres that were associated with youth, such as leisure or social activities. Over time, young people became more engaged with beat and pop music than with folk dancing and, later, more with the Vietnam War and international political question than the local border issues. But it was not an ‘Americanisation’ that took place. It was rather a denationalisation, in particular of the spheres defined and controlled by young people themselves. In a borderland with a contentious past and where national division had been common practice at least officially, this created some paradoxes. Why were some cultural practices nationalised when others were not? Questions as to whether it was possible to play football or be a scout in a particular Danish or German way emerged, especially as the de-nationalised spaces defined by young people did not wipe away the traditionally nationalised ones. By adopting elements of international youth culture, minority youths themselves were responsible for the changes to some of the core perception of what it entailed to be minority – but other factors, over which the minorities had very little control, were important too. The Danish–German military alliance in NATO, as a consequence of the emerging Cold War and East–West division, constituted a severe blow to some fundamental conventional wisdoms, in particular to the Danish-minority one that Germans were the arch-enemy. But whereas histories of the 1960s have indeed pointed to the impact of the Cold War on the lives of young people, the European integration process

242  •  Beyond the Border

has received less attention. In the case of the minorities in the Danish– German border region, ‘Europe’ was as important as the Cold War – if not more so. Even though it never materialised as envisaged, the prospect of a new European reality influenced minority youth in several ways. First, Europe constituted another blow to the national struggle between the two national groups; it became ever more difficult to believe that isolation between Danes and Germans could be upheld in the future. Second, both minorities became affiliated with the European-wide minority association FUEN, a forum where united Europe became a clearly defined goal and where the Danish–German border region was seen as a model region. The fact that the unification of Europe proved to be more impossible in reality than in thought mattered less. The ideas of Europe, therefore, were also a testimony to the fact that influences on identities did not necessarily need to be lived realities in order to have an impact. What mattered here was the perception that certain ideas appeared to be of particular relevance at the time. The ideas set in motion a renegotiation of established truths, even if the ideas themselves did not materialise or, in reality, were short-lived. In addition, the two very different perceptions of European integration in North and South Schleswig also highlighted that the two minorities should not be seen as mirror images of each other. The two minorities differed from each other in more ways. The groups had vastly different perceptions of their past – the most recent conflict, the Second World War, playing a significant role. The ideas of the future might have brought the minorities closer together while, at the same time, memories of the past pulled them apart. The German minority attempted to shelter young people from being too engaged with the past, both on the individual level in families but also on the institutional, one by preventing all activities of a political nature in Jugendverband explicitly. In contrast, the Danish minority expected young people to participate actively in celebrating and commemorating the Danish nation’s past. The nationalist rhetoric surrounding such commemorations, however, was at odds with other developments. The almost opposite relationships with the past aside, the two young groups had in common that some objected to the expectations of the establishment. In North Schleswig, a small group of German-minority youths organised lecture and debate nights, during which political topics and aspects of the past were discussed. The establishment remained sceptical of the group, though later it copied the activities. In South Schleswig, Danish-minority youths faced fierce reactions from the older generation if they dared to express opposition to how the

Conclusion  •  243

past was interpreted, but it did not stop all of them. By the late 1960s, young people of both minorities held onto the notion that they wished to discuss political issues and the past in their own ways. The voices of young people grew more confident. By the mid and late 1960s, Danish- and German-minority youths raised questions such as what it meant to be German and Danish, and even if they were met with criticism, they demanded the right to have the debate. But alongside their interest in borderland-related questions, they also looked beyond them. VSSt, the German-minority student association in Copenhagen, wanted to admit female members, a change which the members claimed was necessary at that point in time to secure survival. In the process of doing so, they invited a women’s rights activist to speak at a lecture night and they debated the topic extensively. But they did not simply overthrow the association’s statutes; rather they sought to make the changes following conventions. In South Schleswig, a group of youths in FUF, another long-standing minority association, solved their problems differently. Disagreeing with the current format of the association’s activities, they simply evicted all members over the age of thirty and claimed the association to be run as a collective. The two cases illustrate how the changes desired by young people were pursued in different ways. Although the idea of opening up VSSt to women was progressive and might have been seen by some contemporaries as an act of rebellion, it was actually pursued in a very conventional way. By contrast, the rebels in South Schleswig might have mirrored rebels elsewhere in their style and rhetoric but they still continued to affiliate themselves with the Danish minority and use its facilities after the so-called revolution. The cases illustrate that young people’s aspirations and the ways they sought to fulfil them did not always have to be either ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’. It also showed that within the minority groups, even within the groups of young people, a set of different opinions and views were always present. Indeed, the Danish- and the German-minority were never homogenous groups, nor were they mirror images of each other, points that have become clear by studying the two groups together through the prism of youth. The transnational focus of this book contributes to explaining how and why the identity transformations took place the way they did. Exploring parallel experiences and consequences, the importance of outside influences has become clear. Isolated studies of either minority group may well have included the same themes, but only by surrendering a narrow and isolated focus do the outside influences become lucid: only then do the broader shifts in society take

244  •  Beyond the Border

place, such as the changed political realities, and the emergence of a de-nationalised youth culture. This book also shows how some of the political, economic, social and cultural developments that influenced all, not only young people’s, lives in post-war Western Europe connected with national questions of another time in a rural borderland. It shows how national conflict was not only overcome with political declarations in a straightforward way but also by outside influences not necessarily directly linked to the border or the region. This adds a new layer to the understanding of the consequences of the ‘long 1960s’ and a new voice to the evergrowing scholarship. The question of course remains whether this was a unique Schleswig experience. So far this book stands alone together with Andreas Fickers’ article on the connections between ‘1968’ and the German-speaking community in Belgium. The fact that Fickers’ study and this one reach almost opposite conclusions is testimony to the fact that there was nothing automatic or predestined about the development. Nor was it self-evident that the minorities in the present would eventually adopt much of the rhetoric of the then young but now established perceptions of what it means to belong to national minority in the Danish-German borderlands. Young people during this period spearheaded the emergence of a minority identity that neither demonised nor idealised one or the other national group. They surrendered the ideals of national competition and the conceptualisation of the other as the enemy. Instead, they formulated ideas of a new and more inclusive minority identity, which resonate with the friendly relations that characterise the borderland today. The region now in fact profiles itself as a bridge between Denmark and Germany, a discourse which is fronted by the two minority establishments, who work together on many levels. Both stress the benefits of being bilingual and familiar with both Danish and German culture and society. Both political parties – which still exist under the same names – no longer only represent the minority groups but focus on the region as a whole, both strongly arguing for strengthening cross-border relations and cooperation. At a time when borders in Europe are closing again, and questions about national belonging and identity are as debated as ever, this may not always be an easy position to hold onto.

O Index Index Key

(GM) German-Minority (DM) Danish-Minority (Y) Young person (G) German from Germany (D) Dane from Denmark (P) Publication (B) Band name Place names are listed in the language of the country where they are located, i.e. places in Denmark are listed in Danish with the German name in brackets and vice versa. A Aabenraa (Apenrade), 53, 63, 66, 84, 87, 90, 128-129, 153, 158, 219 Aarhus, 78, 183, 198, 219, 222 Acker Bilk’s Jazz Band (B), 157 Adenauer, Konrad, 86, 178 agriculture the German minority and, 193–196 in 1960s Denmark, 194–195 America. See United States of America (USA) Americanisation, 12–13, 149–150, 241 Amnesty International, 224–225 Anderson, Franz (Opera singer), 139 Andreasen, Hans (DM) on sport and the national effort, 151 Andresen, Bernd (DM, Y) on being Danish-minority, 138 Andresen, Ellen (DM)

on Dybbøl Commemorations 1970, 232 Andresen, Siegfried (DM) on Dybbøl Commemorations 1970, 232 Andresen, W.A. on the national belonging of Schleswig, 191 Arab-Israeli Conflict, 217, 222 Askov Højskole, 188–189 Augustin, Dr (GM) on fashion, 167–168 on the singing of Das Deutschlandlied, 202–203 on young men’s long hair, 167–168 on young people’s lack of interest in the annual summer camp, 165–166 The Avalons (B), 162

246  •  Index

B Bahnsen, Harke (DM) on young men’s fashion, 169 The Beach Birds (B), 162 The Beatles, 159–160, 162, 169, 199 Berlin, 183, 213, Berlingske Tidende (P), 184, 231 The Bongos (B), 162 Blume, Jef (GM) and connection to KJS, 131,134 Bonn and Copenhagen Declarations, 15, 75, 79, 82, 86–88 border between Denmark and Germany 1920 redrawing, 37–40, 53 British Government post-war position, 47 Danish-minority revision claims (see under Reunification Goal Danish Minority) German-minority interwar revision claims, 53, 56, 59 Bøgh-Andersen, Niels (DM) on military service, 79 Britain and British. See under Great Britain Broager (Broacker), 58 Broby Johannsen, R (DM, Y) on the Vietnam War, 223 Die Brücke (P), 21 identity debates in, 193–204, on Jugendclub Tingleff, 163–164 on sport and youth, 154 See also generational differences, North Schleswig Buch, Steffen (DM, Y) on the Vietnam War, 223–224 Büchert, Nicolai (DM) disagreement with young people, 191–192 in interview with FSS-Nyt, 190 Bund Deutscher Mädel, 44, 57 Bund Deutscher Nordschleswiger (BDN), 100, 130–131

C Callesen, Peter (GM), 60 Callø, Iver (DM) on Dybbøl Commemorations 1970, 232 Capitulation of Nazi Germany (1945), 58–59 The Cardinals (B), 157 censorship of young people’s opinions Danish-minority, 115 (see also under Vulkanen) German-minority, 200–201 (see also Die Brücke, identity debates in) Christensen, Frederik (Fr.) (GM), 60, 63–65, 86 on the graduation cap incident, 90, 92 Christensen, Bent (DM, Y) on FUF in 1970, 230 Christiansen, Karl (DM, Y) on remilitarization of West Germany, 76–78, 82 Christiansen, Siegfried (GM, Y) and German-minority identity, 198–201 and Kreis Junger Schleswiger (KJS), 128–129, 132–133 and VSSt, 217–221 Christiansen, Walter and Kreis Junger Schleswiger (KJS), 128–129, 132–133 The Chuncks (B), 165 Clausen, Herman on remilitarization of West Germany, 77 Collegium 1961, 220–221 Commemorations centenary of 1864, 138–141 and the Danish-Minority, 134–135 Dybbøl 1970, 231–233 Communism, 114, 224 Conradsen, Irmgard (GM) on being German-minority, 201–203

Index  •  247

on the singing of Das Deutschlandlied, 202–203 Copenhagen, 46, 47, 63, 78, 79, 80, 84, 101, 125, 129, 141, 169, 183, 187, 199, 201, 211, 215, 217, 219– 221, 230, 240 Council of Europe, 98 The Creaking Door (B), 162 Creole Stampers (B), 98 D DAN (Gymnastics Club), 150 membership figures, 155–156 Dane, Leo (Slesvig Liga) on the hope for South Schleswig’s reunification with Denmark, 141 Danish Minority facts and figures post-1945, 44, 52 pre-1945, 41–42 Danish-German Border. See under border Dansk Gymnastik Forening (DGF), 50 and football, 152 membership figures, 155–156 Dansk-Nordisk Ungdomsforbund, 45 De Tampen (B), 161 Denmark 1960s and, 177–178, 194, 196 Danish-minority youth moving to, 179–182, 184 Danish-minority criticism of, 185–189, 192 European Integration and, 108, 115–116 Euroscepticism in, 98 historiography, 12 German-minority loyalty to, 104–105 German occupation of, 57–59 NATO and, 73–75, 78, 80–82 postwar social changes, 86 Deutsche Jungen- und Mädchenshaft Nordschleswig, 57

Deutscher Schul- und Sprachverein für Nordschleswig (DSSV), 21, 64, 87, 89, 197, 199 Deutscher Volkskalender Nordschleswig, 22, 59–60 on Jugendverband, 153–154 Deutsches Gymnasium Nordschleswig, 1–2 establishment of, 87–90 students’ view on Europe, 104 VSSt connections to, 221 Deutsches Haus (Flensburg), 157, 162, 172n Deutschlandlied (German National Anthem), 202–203 division of Europe, East-West, 73–74, 93 Donovan, 160 Duborg-Skolen, 1–2, 42–43, 47–48, 80 schoolparties at, 160–161, 163 Dybbøl (Düppel), 231–233 Dylan, Bob, 160 E Eckernförde (Egernførde), 46 Eichmann Trial, 128 Eiderstedt (Ejdersted), 46, 50 Einfeldt, Kay (DM, Y) on recommending not voting for SSW, 187 Engberg, Poul (D) on European Integration, 110, 112 European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), 98 European Defence Community, 77–78 European Economic Community (ECC), 98, 101, 104, 115–116 European Free trade Association (EFTA), 98, 101 European Parliament, 98 F Faarhus, 125 Farland, Knud Skov (D) on young people speaking their mind, 141

248  •  Index

fashion, 167–169, 218 and history of the 1960s, 10–11, 149–150 and identities, 17 young men’s long hair, 1–2, 167– 168, 213 Feddersen, Hanna (GM, Y), 220 Federal Union of European Nationalities (FUEN), 101–103, 216, 242 Fink, Troels (D) connection to VSSt, 216 First World War, 37, 124 Frivilligt Drenge Forbund (FDF). See under scouting The Flamingos (B), 158 Flensborg Avis, 20, 113–114, 189 on FUF (1969), 225–230 on Danish-minority youth (1966), 162 on the German minority, 89–90 on Günter Weitling, 105, 127 inter-generational debate in, 141– 143, 190–192 Flensborg Ungdomsforening (FUF) 42, 225–226 Badminton, 49 choir, 49, 226–227 folk dancing, 42, 49 rebellion in 1969, 227–231 Rock Concerts/Folklore Nights, 228–229, 231 Flensburg (Flensborg), 37, 41–44, 46, 50, 53, 76, 101–103, 108, 137, 150, 152, 156–157, 161–163, 168, 180, 183, 195, 211, 225, 228, 230–231 Flensburg Bay (Flensborg Fjord), 58 folk dancing in North Schleswig, 85, 149, 151, 153 in South Schleswig 42, 49, 51, 139, 149, 151, 160, 177, 241 Foreningen for Sydslesvigske Studerende (FSS) 20, 78, 233 on being Danish-minority, 189– 190, 192

on the relationship between Danes and Germans (1957), 108–109 on remilitarisation of West Germany, 78–79 connection to VSSt, 216–217 France, 86, 116–117n, 178 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, 128 Fröhlich, Niels (D) relation to VSSt, 218 From, Simon J. (D) on employment opportunities for young people, 194 Front og Bro (P), 20, 78, 108, 189–190 on Europe, 110, 112–113 FSS-Nyt (P), 20, 189, 231–232 G De Gaulle, Charles, 86, 98, 178 Gender equality, 210, 214–215 VSSt campaign for, 217–222 Generational differences and conflict in histories of the 1960s, 13, 123 Danish-minority, 115, 135–135, 137, 141–143, 189–191, 227– 233 in Denmark, 178 German-minority, 90, 92, 132–134, 200–203, 210, 212–213 in West Germany, 178–179 German Minority churches and congregations, 63, 166 education system, 56–57, 61–62, 64, 84, 86 facts and figures, 53, 60, 63 Germany (West) 1960s in, 149, 159, 177–178 British occupation of, 47 Danish minority and, 186, 188 European Integration and, 99–100, 108, 140 German minority and, 179, 193, 202–203, 216 historiography, 12–13 National Socialist legacy in, 128 NATO and Remiliarisation of, 73–80, 82, 85–86, 185, 228

Index  •  249

Gillam, Philip P. on advice for teenagers, 166–167 Gläser, Hans J. (GM, Y) on being German-minority, 200 Goodman, Benny (Jazz Musician), 157 Great Britain, 13, 56, 78, 108, 115, 117n The Great War. See under First World War Greenland, 189 Grænseforeningen, 88 on European Integration, 113 Grænsen (P), 20, 80 on Commemorations, 135–137 on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181, 194 on Europe, 112–113 Grenzfriedensbund, 101, 130 Grenzfriedenshefte (P), 22, 24 on European Integration, 101 Grimm, Jakob, 201–202 H Haderslev (Hadersleben), 53, 63, 100, 125, 152, 158 The Haggles (B), 162–163 hairstyles. See under fashion Haithabu (Hedeby), 109 Hannberg, Dieter (DM, Y) on the future of the Danish Minority (1957), 81 Hansen, A.M. (D) on German-minority education, 61 Hansen, Andreas (DM) as headmaster of Duborg-Skolen, 43 Hansen, Bernhard (DM) on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181 Hansen, Hans Christian (GM, Y) on being German-minority, 199–201 Hanssen, Hans Peter (H.P) (D), 139 Hanssen, Merete Bjørn (D) relation to VSSt, 218–219 Harck, Ole (DM, Y) on FSS and Europe, 108–109

Hauser, Oswald (G) on European Integration, 101 Heick, Thorbjørn (DM, Y) on Danish-ness in South Schleswig, 190 Heil, Hermann (GM) on employment opportunities for young people, 195, 197 Hennigs, Henry (DM, Y) on the Vietnam War, 222 Hintze, Günter (DM, Y) on the future of the Danish Minority (1957), 81 Hinz, Holger (DM, Y) on idealisation of Denmark, 188–189 Hiort Lorenzen, P., 139–140 Hitler Jugend, 44, 57 Hoffmeyer, Johannes (DM) on generational differences in South Schleswig, 191 Höher, Hans Jürgen on being German-minority, 202 Holocaust, 128 human rights, 210, 224–225 I I., Erwin (GM, Y) on European Integration, 104 identities concepts of, 17–19 language and, 15–16, 52–53, 61 (in North Schleswig, 85, 100, 131, 151; in South Schleswig, 151, 185, 189) Ingwersen, Jens (DM, Y) on the Danish cultural effort in South Schleswig, 187 on generational differences in South Schleswig, 191–192, 197 on the idealisation of Denmark, 189 interaction between minority and majority, 153, 163 in North Schleswig, 197 in South Schleswig, 185–186 Italy, 150

250 • Index

J Jacobsen, Karen (DM, Y) on minority-majority interaction, 185–186 Jepsen, Peter (GM), 61 Jessen, Carsten (Lead singer of The Chunks), 165 Jessen, Erik (D) on establishment of Deutsches Gymnasium Nordschleswig, 87 Johannsen, Karin (DM, Y) on FSS, 108 Johannsen, Kay (DM, Y) on the Danish-minority national struggle, 114–115, 137 Johannsen, Kurt (DM, Y) on Human Rights, 224 Johannsen, Peter Iver (GM, Y) on VSSt, 215 Johannsen, Hans Peter (G), connection to KJS, 130 Jørgensen, Harald (D) on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 182 Jugendclub Tingleff, 163–165, 241 Jugendverband, 21, 25, 65–67, 125, 131, 165, 241–242 criticism of, 129, 166, 212–213 and European Integration, 107, 116 on German Identity, 85–86 on German-minority youth, 92, 154–155 relationship with KJS, 129–134 and sport, 66, 150–152 Julius, Ingolf (DM, Y) on FUF (1970), 230 Junge Front (P), 54–55, 65, 132 Jürgensen, Helga (GM, Y), 220 K Kaadtmann, Gerhard (GM), 65–66 Karstensen, Christel (GM, Y) on travelling in Germany, 204 Kiel, 84, 140, 202 Kin-states Relations, 179

Danish-minority youths with Danes and Denmark, 184–185, 189 German-minority youths with Germans and Germany, 193, 198–204 Klüver, Wilhelm (DM) on the centenary of 1864, 140–141 Knecht, Harald (GM) on sport and youth, 154 on young people (1965), 164–165 Knivsbjerg (Knivsberg), 66, 90, 152 Koch, Bent A. (D) on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181–182 Kolberg, F.G. (GM) on the Copenhagen Declaration, 87 on German-minority youth leaving North Schleswig, 83 Koopmann, Meta (GM), 84 Koopmann, Paul (GM), 84–85, 196, 212, 214 on Europe, 105, 107 connection to KJS, 130, 133–134 on young people and politics, 103, 133 Köster, Lothar (DM, Y) on military service in West Germany, 187–188 Kragelund, P. (DM) on Dybbøl Commemorations 1970, 232 Kreis Junger Schleswiger (KJS), 21, 129–134, 151, 165, 216 Kristeligt Dagblad (P) on Dybbøl Commemorations 1970, 232 Kronika, Jacob (DM), 226 on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181–184, 192 in connection with generational differences (1969–1970), 227, 232–233 Küssner, Rolf (DM, Y) on the Vietnam War, 223–224

Index • 251

L La Cour, Vilhelm Dr. (DM) on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181 language and identity. See under identities Larsen, Arne G. (D) on the centenary of 1864, 138–139 Leckband, Povl (DM, Y), 231 and his speech at Dybbøl Commemorations (1970), 231–232 leisure activities, 48–50, 53, 65–66 and identities, 18 national division of, 148–152, 177 See also Folk Dancing, music, scouts and sport Lesch, Georg (DM) on differences between Danes and Germans, 142 Lessow, Arthur (GM), 89 Lindemann, Hans (GM, Y) on being German-minority, 199–200 criticism of Jugendverband, 212–213 Linnemann Willy-August (DM) on Dybbøl Commemorations 1970, 231 long hair (young men). See under fashion Lorenzen, Detlef (DM, Y) on the centenary of 1864, 141 on idealisation of Denmark, 186–187 M Marquardsen, Harro (GM), 194 connection to KJS, 130 Melchior, Arne (D) relation to VSSt, 217 Melgaard, Poul (D) on employment opportunities for young people, 194 Meyer, Ernst (DM) on European Integration, 114 Meyer, Karl Otto (DM)

on Danish Cultural Efforts in South Schleswig, 187 on Europe, 114 on Military Service, 114 Military Service in North Schleswig, 83–84 in South Schleswig, 44, 75–81, 114, 188, 222–223 Møller, Flemming (DM) on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181 on the nature of Danish-ness, 190 Møller, Peter Detlef (DM, Y) on Cold-War alliance between Denmark and Germany, 80–82 Moral Re-Armament (MRA), 157 music and the 1960s, 1, 149–150, 169 Folk and protest, 228 and identity, 180 Jazz, 56, 92, 149–150, 157–159, 165, 240 patriotic, 85, 139, 156, 227 Pop and Beat, 149, 161, 240–241 Rock’n’Roll, 149 Swing, 56 Mylius, Jørgen (Danish Radio Host), 160 N N., Hans (GM, Y) on European Integration, 104 N., Hans-Anthon (GM, Y) on European Integration, 104 Nach- und Jugendvolkshochschule Tingleff, 84–85, 104, 196, 211– 212, 214 national belonging of Schleswig and Schleswigers, 14 Danish views, 44–46, 52, 59, 61, 109, 188, 191 German views, 59, 64–65, 89, 182 national self-determination, 37 National Socialism denouncement of, 128 in connection with European Integration, 114

252 • Index

influence on West German youth, 123 in North Schleswig, 52–58, 100, 142 in South Schleswig, 44, 142 NATO, 73, 75, 78–79, 81–82, 93, 99, 138, 140 Nielsen, Frede (D) on German-minority schools, 61 Nielsen, Kai L. (DM, Y) on the Vietnam War, 224 Nissen, Hans Jürgen (GM) on the purpose of Jugendverband, 221 on young people’s lack of interest in Jugendverband, 166, 213–214 Nissen, Heinrich (DM) in support of FUF rebellion, 2 28 Der Nordschleswiger, 65 on the construction of a German secondary school in North Schleswig, 87 on the first graduating class of the German secondary school, 88 Nordschleswigsche Heimatsbühne, 66–67 Norway, 65, 117n Novrup, Johannes (D) on European Integration, 112 O Old Merry Tale Jazz Band (B), 157 Oral History Interviews in this book, 46, 56, 61–62, 83, 123, 125, 128, 133, 151–152, 158, 163, 183, 195, 231 method of, 22–23 P Peters-Lehm, G. (D) on the centenary of 1864, 139 Petersen, Elke (GM, Y) on youth activities, 164–165 Petersen, Jakob (D) on German-minority education, 62 Plebecites of 1920, 37–40, 52–53, 139 Politiken (P), 56

Popular Culture, and the 1960s, 10–12, 149–150 and identity, 18 Postmemories, 122–123 R Radio Luxembourg, 160 Rasmussen, Peter (GM) on agriculture and the German minority, 194 Raun, Hans (GM) on Europe, 105–106 refugees and expellees (German), 44 remilitarisation of West Germany, 73, 75–79, 82, 93 Repulsion by Roman Polanski (film), 220 Rerup, Lorenz (DM) on Danish and German minorities, 115–116 Reunification Goal Danish Minority, 47, 52, 74,99, 107–108, 117, 141, 190–192, 210, 231 Ritter, Manfred (GM) on the establishment of Jugendhof, 165 Rømø, 166 The Rolling Stones, 160 Roth, C.J. (GM) on the national struggle between Germans and Danes, 54 Rudbeck, Frederik (D) on the German minority, 88, 191 S Sandberg (Sandbjerg), 228 Sass, Wilhelm (GM), 66 Scandinavianism, 110 Schleswig division of, 37–41, 59 in the historiography, 14–16 as model region for other border regions, 15, 100–102 See also national belonging of Schleswig and Schleswigers Schleswig-Holstein British military government in, 48

Index  •  253

Schleswig-Holstein Movement, 53, 65, 89 Schmidt-Gorsblock, Hans (GM) 194 on being German-minority, 83 Schmidt-Oxbüll, Hans (GM), 102 on being German, 100–101 on European Integration, 103, 107 relation to Günter Weitling, 191 connection to KJS, 130, 134 Schmidt-Wodder, Hans (GM), 194 Schmidt, Jes (GM) on German-minority youth, 86, 92 on National Division of Sport, 152 on Nordschleswigsche Heimatsbühne, 66 Schmidt, Johannes (GM) on being German-minority, 201 Schwansen (Svans), 46 Scouts FDF, 51 and national belonging, 159 Pfadfinders, 159 in South Schleswig, 48 Second German Empire, 37 Second World War, Danish-minority perceptions of, 77, 124, 136–137, 142 German-minority perceptions of, 66–67, 123–125, 127–128, 134, 202–203 in North Schleswig, 57–60, 125, 127, 131–132 in South Schleswig, 43–44 Skadegaard, Poul (D), 101, 216 Skamlingsbankestævnet. See under commemorations, Centenary of 1864 Slesvigsk Parti (SP), 88, 199 Snohøj Højskole, 110, 112 Sønderborg Jazz Club, 159 Speck Dänen (Bacon Danes), 46 sport, 50, 66 fistball, 152–154 football, 152 gymnastics, 149–150 handball, 149, 153–154 and identity, 18

nationalisation and, 52, 54, 65–66, 125, 148, 150–152 rowing, 149, 153–154 Sprogforeningen, 62 Stenz, Christian (D) on European Integration, 114 connection to KJS, 131 Storyville Jazz Club Flensburg, 157–158 Südschleswigscher Wählerverein (SSW), 51, 187 on remilitarisation of West Germany, 75, 78–79 Svensson, Adolph on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 181 Sweden, 135, 159 Sydslesvigs danske Ungdomsforeninger (SdU), 19, 49–50, 52, 151–152, 163 on European Integration, 109, 116 on military Service, 80 and sport, 155 and Treklangen, 51 Sydslesvigsk Forening (SSF), 227 and military service, 81 on remilitarisation of West Germany, 78–79 The Syncopatters (B), 158 Sønderborg (Sonderburg), 53, 62, 63, 84, 158, 159, 167 T Tästensen, Cornelius (GM, Y) on gender roles, 215 Tästensen, Ursula (GM, Y) and KJS, 130, 133–134 on the singing of Das Deutschlandlied, 202–203 Taubert, Uwe (DM, Y) on Jazz and National Borders, 158 Tessin, Gunnar (DM, Y) on the Vietnam War, 222 Thiellesen, Hans (GM), 87 Thygesen, Frantz (DM) on Danish-minority youth (1960), 136

254  •  Index

Tinglev (Tingleff), 84–86, 104, 107, 116, 127, 152, 163–165, 196, 211, 212, 214, 241 Transnational History, 6–7 Treklangen (P), 2, 19–20, 24, 50–52, 189, 201, 224 on the Centenary of 1864, 138–139 on Europe, 113–116 on military service, 80 on pop music, 162 on the Second World War, 136 Tychsen, Hermann (DM) on 1954 Schleswig-Holstein election, 51 on Danish-minority youth leaving South Schleswig, 180

Visti, Bent (D) relation to VSSt, 218 Vulkanen (P), 20, 114–115, 137, 201 being Danish-minority discussed in, 186, 190 and European Integration, 108 and Global Issues, 222–225 (see also Amnesty International, human rights and Vietnam War) Jazz discussed in, 157–159 and military service, 80–81 minority-majority interaction discussed in, 185–186 school parties, discussed in, 160– 161, 163

U Uge (Uk), 61 United Kingdom. See under Great Britain United States of America (USA), 10, 12, 56, 74, 78, 110, 150, 159, 166, 169, 223, 224

W Wehlitz, Gerhard (DM) on European Integration, 109 Weitling, Günter (GM, Y), 22, 125– 126, 151, 191, 198, 240 on European Integration, 105–107 on German-minority youth (1961), 104–105, 127–128 connection to KJS, 129, 131 connection to VSSt, 216 Wingender, Franz (DM) on European Integration, 109

V Verbindung Schleswiger Studenten (VSSt), 22, 148, 215–216, 233, 243 campaign for female membership, 217–221 contact with FSS, 216–217 Vergangenheitsbewältigung, 127– 128 Versailles Treaty, 37, 54 Vestergaard, Ebbe (DM) on young people in the 1960s, 138 Vietnam War in histories of the 1960s, 11, 13 opposition to, 210, 222–224, 230, 233

Y Youth concept of, 7–10 culture transnational, 210, 230 histories of, 10–14 Z Zeuch, Karl Heinrich (DM, Y) and FUF (1969), 226–228