Page 61 - Sjæklen2010

61
47. Fiskeribladet, februar 1941, nr. 11.
48. Opfattelsen af at overskridelserne af fiskerigrænserne
udgjorde en trods mod Tyskerne gengives bl.a. hos Rasmus-
sen, 1998, p. 98.
49. Fiskeribladet, juni 1945, nr. 3.
50. Fiskeribladet, juni 1945, nr. 3.
51. Fiskeribladet, juni 1945, nr. 3.
52. Fiskeribladet, Juni 1944, nr. 3.
53. Vestkysten, 6-7-1943.
54. Vestkysten, 6-7-1943.
55. Vestkysten, 6-7-1943.
56. Vestkysten, 6-7-1943.
57. L. Bindsløv Frederiksen: Pressen under besættelsen.
Hovedtræk af den danske dagspresses vilkår og virke i pe-
rioden 1940-45, Århus 1960, p. 21ff.
58. Vestkysten 8-5- 1943.
59. Verner Gorridsen: Besættelsestidsminder på Esbjerg
Havn, I Fra Ribe Amt, Esbjerg 2007, 47-62, p. 49.
60. Vestkysten, 24-11-1944.
61. Fiskeribladet, oktober 1945, nr. 7.
Summary
During the German occupation of Denmark in 1940-45, the
fishing industry in Esbjerg, Denmark’s largest fishing har-
bour, prospered greatly. This was not only because Danish
fishermen were virtually the only nationality still fishing in
the North Sea, or because plaice seems to have been abun-
dant during the years of occupation. It was also because of
the particularly advantageous trade agreements between
the Danish government and the occupying power. Even
after August 1943, when the Danish government formally
ended its cooperation, monthly trade negotiations between
Danish and German representatives were continued. The
agreements regarding the Danish fisheries meant that Ger-
many supplied fuel to enable continued fishing in return for
Germany becoming the main export market for Danish fish.
In this situation, it is perhaps unsurprising that Danish fish
exports to Hitler’s Third Reich became an increasingly con-
troversial subject throughout the occupation.
The economic benefit experienced by exporters, skip-
pers and ordinary fishermen spurred objections from two
sides. On the one hand, the general flow of money into the
hands of the skippers and fishermen evoked criticism, espe-
cially in the conservative media. This criticism was rooted
in class-based stereotypes, which depicted the fishermen
as socially irresponsible. On the other hand, the fishing in-
dustry also became an object of the resistance propaganda,
which was circulated through the underground press. The
aim here included limiting Danish exports to Germany, and
the criticism was based primarily on a national moral indig-
nation.
The article argues that these two contexts for criticising
the fishermen and the exporters are difficult to keep sepa-
rate. This becomes clear in an analysis of the strategies of
legitimisation which were promoted by the trade journals.
An analysis of two main industry journals shows that both
fishermen and exporters could draw on several well estab-
lished narratives to legitimise their prosperity. The narra-
tives were built up around several elements but focused
particularly on the risks involved in the industry combined
with its contribution to Danish society. These elements were
stressed as increasingly important in the light of war and
occupation, and their mobilisation must be seen in the light
of the above debates, which also brought to the surface a
deep-rooted and traditional view of many Danish North Sea
fishermen as having flawed morals. An image of ambiva-
lence regarding the fishing industry thus existed, and there
was a struggle to define the role of the industry during the
occupation.
In the light of the liberation it also became clear – per-
haps not surprisingly – that local political and economic con-
siderations played a large part in mobilising popular support
for the role of the fishermen during the occupation. Hence
the industry mustered widespread cross-political support in
the local media, and the generally critical voices from the
underground propaganda ceased following liberation. The
official stories from within the industry were instead pro-
moted through local media – disseminating the idea of a
clear distinction between business and national morals.