In a post on Facebook on Tuesday last week, author and Red politician Mímir Kristjánsson strongly opposed the presentation of the April days in 1940 in the NRK major series «Atlantic Crossing».
When Dagbladet calls, Kristjánsson emphasizes that he understands that this is a drama series – but believes it is important to keep your tongue straight in your mouth anyway.
– What I react to is that Prime Minister Nygaardsvold and his entire government are portrayed as hysterical, cowardly and completely unable to do anything sensible in these April days, he says to Dagbladet.
Johan Nygaardsvold (1879-1952) became Prime Minister of the Labor Party in 1935, and led the government in exile in London until 1945.
Kristjánsson emphasizes that he has only seen the first episode when he talks to Dagbladet.
“Atlantic Crossing” director Alexander Eik rejects the criticism.
– It is nice that the history-interested Kristjánsson gets involved. But the claim that we portray “the whole government” as “hysterical and cowardly” is wrong, he writes in an e-mail to Dagbladet. Read his answer further down in the case.
Historian Ole Kristian Grimnes gives both Kristjánsson and Eik a partial right. You can read the expert’s judgment at the bottom of the case.
“Atlantic Crossing” premiered on NRK on 25 October. Dagbladet’s reviewer called it a “bland soap opera”, and rolled a two on the dice.
NRK responds to the slaughter
– Fet history
Many people know of the meeting on April 10, 1940, where the king rejected the Germans’ demand that the government resign. But already the day before Foreign Minister Halvdan Koht had delivered the same message to German envoy Curt Bräuer.
Nevertheless, Kristjánsson believes, many people have a notion that Norway’s “no” was the king’s initiative. “Atlantic Crossing” helps to cement this perception, he believes.
– It seems as if he makes that decision all alone, while the government is just fooling around and is nervous about dying. That story is wrong, says Kristjánsson.
He had the same objection in his time against Erik Poppe-directed “Kongens nei” (2016).
– It’s a bold story. It suits us very well, but unfortunately it was not so easy.
view more
“Villain”
Johan Nygaardsvold was far from the “villain” he has later been portrayed as, according to Kristjánsson. The portrayal of Nygaardsvold and the April days in “Atlantic Crossing” is “at best very caricatured”, he believes.
– What disappears from this story is that it was first and foremost the government Nygaardsvold, and not the king, who said no to the Germans. The king’s no is less important than the government’s no.
The king, he points out, followed the constitution and confirmed a decision the government had already made.
– My goal is not to drag either King Haakon or Crown Prince Olav into the mud. We are happy to pay tribute to them. Although the king’s “no” was not as unique as we pretend, it was important that they said no, and that they left in the end, he says.
Kristjánsson points to several possible explanations for the fact that this performance has arisen:
– One of them is that we love our royal house. I do too. There is an idea that it must be built up and celebrated. It is the simplest national symbol we have.
Shouts warning about NRK recording
– Willing to stay in Norway
In the royal house, there were different views on what to do in the April days.
– Crown Prince Olav, who becomes the hero in “Atlantic Crossing”, was willing to stay in Norway to cooperate with the German Administrative Council, while the king leaves the country, says Kristjánsson.
That was not the case. Kristjánsson relies on, among other things the books of royal cinema Tor Bomann-Larsen, which depicts Olav’s desire to stay in Norway in the book «Æresordet».
– The picture drawn by Olav in this series, at least so far, is that he was a rock-solid anti-Nazi who did not hesitate for a second, and who long before the government and anyone else was aware that resistance had to be resisted.
That is wrong, Kristjánsson thinks. He says he is “almost willing to bet” that these nuances will not appear in “Atlantic Crossing”.
– It does not fit into our story of a heroic royal house.
view more
– Shameful
Kristjánsson emphasizes that Olav probably had noble motives for wanting to stay in Norway, and points out that this in no way means being a Nazi sympathizer.
– It could perhaps have contributed to less war and less unrest and destruction.
He also says that Olav, to a greater extent than his father, was a supporter of a thought that was common at the time: that Germany and England should stand together against the real enemy, which was Stalin and Bolshevism.
– That is why it is so strange that he should appear as such an incredibly rock-solid anti-German voice, even long before the Germans came to Norway, when we know that he considered a line of cooperation as late as June 1940.
The shadow side of the story of “the king’s no” is the narrative of the “cowardly” government, Kristjánsson believes.
– What I think is shameful is how to portray the government, the elected representatives and Nygaardsvold. In order to raise the royal house, one has to pretend that everyone else was completely on their face and in dizziness in those days.
– Sitting alone in a hotel room
– Injustice
On the contrary, he believes that the government was more steadfast in its decision than the royal house did.
– There is a historical injustice, especially against Nygaardsvold, which is left as a scapegoat.
Kristjánsson also believes that it all mixes with “hopeless macho performances” in the series.
– All members of the royal family are strong, stout and brave men, who are not afraid of the invasion, and little Nygaardsvold is cowardly and pathetic. I think everyone was pretty desperate and scared in the April days of 1940, and I do not think it was the case that the bravest and toughest men made the best decisions.
The tendency to oversimplify in stories about World War II is pervasive, he believes.
– You see that in “Atlantic Crossing”: the Germans must be so bad that they shoot dogs for no reason, those who are hysterical must be damn hysterical, and there is no way how good and loving the Crown Prince is as a father, he says, and concludes:
– I do not think that Nygaardsvold was the great hero in 1940, but he was also not the cowardly hysteric that he is portrayed as now.
Receives courtship letter after TV success
– Error
“Atlantic Crossing” director Alexander Eik responds in an e-mail to Dagbladet. The portrayal of the Nygaardsvold government’s opposition to the Nazis in “The King’s No” has little to do with “Atlantic Crossing”, he believes.
– We have not even touched on the subject, and the government is in fact barely included in the first episode of “Atlantic Crossing”. Precisely because “The King’s No” portrayed it so thoroughly. And, in my eyes, accountable.
Oak elaborates:
– Nygaardsvold’s fear during the attack, in contrast to the calm of the king and the crown prince, is duly portrayed by many eyewitnesses. Kristjánsson could still have criticized us for placing the Prime Minister on Lillestrøm during the bombing. He and Hambro actually took a car to Hamar.
Oak shows the book «9. April 1940 – a reported attack », where historian Aage G. Sivertsen writes:
«Nygaardsvold was both physically and mentally exhausted. He cried and begged Hambro that he should be allowed to leave the responsibility (…) The Prime Minister simply could not do more. “
– The nervous breakdown in Hamar is not included in «Atlantic Crossing». In that sense, Nygaardsvold gets away cheaply, writes Eik.
Alerts about new information
– Obvious criticism
King Haakon’s and Crown Prince Olav’s anti – Nazi attitudes, and their frustration over the government’s “lack of preparedness” before the war, are well documented, he believes.
“Both my father and I were desperate about the state of affairs, but could do little. The government was hardly in doubt about what my father meant “, King Olav said later.
Eik further claims to have found a letter in the USA during the work on the series, written by Crown Prince Olav and sent to President Roosevelt:
“My unfortunate country, which fully believed in its neutrality, was taken, so to speak, with its trousers down.” An obvious criticism of the government.
However, it is true that Crown Prince Olav in June 1940 proposed to the government that he should stay in the country, writes Eik.
– But to firmly say that he thus “considered a line of cooperation”, is a bit unvarnished. One of the scenarios discussed was that the Crown Prince should be captured, as inspiration for continued resistance. This was instead General Ruge’s lottery. We do not push this under the rug, the Crown Prince’s proposal is included in episode two of “Atlantic Crossing”.
Judgment of the expert
Dagbladet has presented the statements from Kristjánsson and Eik to historian Ole Kristian Grimnes, who is an expert on Norwegian occupation history.
– Kristjánsson is absolutely right that the king’s no was not decisive. But Norway’s no was also not decided in advance by the government, even though the foreign minister had met with the Germans, he says to Dagbladet.
Decisions of this magnitude were made in the Cabinet.
– So it was the government and the king who together, in Nybergsund on April 10, officially rejected the Germans’ demand to appoint Quisling as prime minister.
He has seen “Atlantic Crossing” himself, and partly agrees with the criticism. But not quite:
– Nygaardsvold is presented fairly one-dimensionally. In the series, he is very puzzling, but perhaps not as violent as Kristjánsson should have it.
He gives both Kristjánsson and Eik a partial right:
– It is true that Nygaardsvold became depressed, and in part tried to push the responsibility away. The other side is that he eventually stepped up, continued as prime minister, and rejected Quisling.
Guri Varpe, head of communications at the Royal House, writes in an e-mail to Dagbladet that they do not want to comment on the case.
–
