Abstract
This paper portrays surveillance of peace movements in Denmark during the Cold War. It is demonstrated that the Danish police viewed the Danish peace movement as divided into two categories. One group originated from the liberal peace tradition with ties to the Liberal Party and the Social Liberal Party. The other category had a pro-Soviet outlook and was affiliated with the World Peace Council. The paper is based on research carried out by a Danish Commission of Inquiry that investigated surveillance of political activities conducted by the Danish police 1945–89. The Commission had unimpeded access to all official Danish archives including the files of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service.
Introduction
In June 1986, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET, Politiets Efterretningstjeneste) tapped a telephone conversation between two Danish communists. One was in Denmark while the other was abroad. They spoke about an article that had recently been published in a Danish newspaper. The article was about an upcoming international nonpartisan peace conference, the World Peace Congress, scheduled to be held in Copenhagen in October 1986. According to the article, the conference was a communist propaganda event. This was a noteworthy allegation as the conference was officially arranged by a small but influential Danish neutralist and pacifist political party, the Social Liberal Party (Det Radikale Venstre), in co-operation with the Cooperating Committee for Peace and Security (Samarbejdskomiteen for Fred og Sikkerhed). This was a nominally nonpartisan umbrella organisation, which consisted of numerous Danish peace movements. But according to the article the Social Liberal Party and the Cooperating Committee were puppets and the actual organizer was the World Peace Council, an international communist organisation.
The newspaper article was the result of a carefully prepared press campaign by PET. In March 1986, seven months before the conference, PET obtained the approval of the Copenhagen City Court to tap a telephone belonging to the Danish branch of the World Peace Council, organiser of the World Peace Congress. Thereafter, a PET officer contacted three journalists from two national newspapers, offering them information about the Cooperating Committee as well as the World Peace Council. The journalists indicated their interest in the information and they agreed to publish it. Following that, two PET officers met with a Danish citizen who was publicly known as an inveterate critic of the Soviet Union. They urged him to challenge the organisers by asking for time at the congress to talk about the violation of human rights in the Soviet Union. In case the organisers should decline, the PET officers suggested that he should write newspaper articles indicating that the congress was subject to communist censorship.
According to PET, the operation was a success. During the 1970s and 1980s, PET had employed its resources and manpower to demonstrate that the Cooperating Committee was, in fact, a communist front organisation. Now, prior to the holding of a huge international peace conference, with participants from all over the world, the true political nature of the Committee had been revealed. A number of national newspapers had published sensational articles claiming that the conference was a communist propaganda event. Shortly before the opening of the conference a number of social democratic organisations publicly announced that they would refuse to attend the conference, which they now considered to be a communist-dominated event.Footnote 1
The aim of this article is to describe and analyse PET's surveillance of peace movements in Denmark during the Cold War. How did PET portray the peace movements? Did the security and intelligence service look upon the movements as one unified group, or did it regard them as different groups with differing aims? Why did PET keep the peace movements under surveillance? And how did PET's view of the peace movements develop over time? Finally, the article will briefly describe the methods employed by PET in its surveillance of the peace associations.
This article is primarily based on the research I carried out in connection with an official Danish Commission of Inquiry that investigated the surveillance conducted by PET during the Cold War.Footnote 2 The Commission (1999–2009) was directed to examine and describe PET's surveillance of political activities in Denmark from 1945 to 1989 as well as ascertain whether the Service had broken any laws or rules during the period from 1968 to 1989, and it had full and unimpeded access to all official archives in addition to the files of PET. PET has always followed a practice that involves the continual destruction of its files and it is, therefore, often difficult to identify the sources and reasons for PET's perceptions. In particular, few documents have survived from the early part of the Cold War. In addition to official archives, the Commission examined archives belonging to political parties and movements which were under surveillance during the Cold War, as well as material from a number of foreign archives.
The early years: the 1950s and 1960s
The history of the Danish peace movements dates back to the late nineteenth century. The first Danish peace association was the Danish Peace Society (Dansk Fredsforening), formed in 1882.Footnote 3 Until the end of the Second World War, this association was the most significant and influential organisation of its kind. However, as early as 1916 and 1926 – i.e. during and following the First World War – two international societies, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and the War Resisters' International established branches in Denmark. They would play important roles in the Danish peace movements during the Cold War.Footnote 4
In April 1949, at the time of the formation of the Atlantic Pact (from 1950: NATO) the international World Peace Council was formed. During the fall of 1949 a branch was established in Denmark with the designation Supporters of the Peace (Fredens Tilhængere). During the 1950s, Supporters of the Peace took part in debates about the Cold War and nuclear proliferation, but the organisation was dissolved in 1959. According to the literature, the reason for the group's lack of success was the widespread understanding among politicians and opinion-formers that the organisation had been ‘a folding screen for communist propaganda,’ as it was expressed in a national newspaper.Footnote 5 In his memoirs, the chairman of the association during most of its existence, the former communist Mogens Fog, dismissed the allegation that the organization was directed by the communists as a fabrication. However, recent research has, in part, confirmed the allegation of communist influence.Footnote 6 Supporters of the Peace was most active between 1950 and 1953 whereupon its activities seem to have been reduced. Yet, in 1954 a new peace organisation, the Danish Peace Conference (Dansk Fredskonference), was established. According to the Danish historian Søren Hein Rasmussen, who has published the most important book-length study of popular movements in Denmark, the Danish Peace Conference was a nonpartisan NGO with relations to various peace groups, and it included members of the Social Liberal Party, the Communist Party, Social Democratic Party, pacifists and others.Footnote 7 This character sketch has not been seriously challenged by other historians.
The most influential peace movement during the 1960s was the Campaign against Nuclear Weapons (Kampagnen mod Atomvåben) established in 1960 by the folk high school teacher and peace activist Carl Scharnberg. Since the Danish government had accepted the main demand of the Campaign – that there should be no nuclear weapons on Danish soil – the Campaign did not demand political changes by the Danish government. However, the existing literature agrees that the Campaign was important and path-breaking. Prior to the formation of the Campaign, discussions about foreign affairs were limited to a small elite of highly educated individuals and officials employed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, many of whom were recruited from the aristocracy. The most important impact of the Campaign was to create an interest about foreign affairs and aspects of Denmark's security policy among younger people. As such, it has been argued that the Campaign contributed to a change in Danish political culture.Footnote 8
PET's surveillance of peace movements in the 1950s and 1960s may be divided into two categories. In the first were those groups PET suspected to be communist-inspired and organised and consequently acting according to the interests of the Soviet Union. In the second were those groups PET perceived as being a part of the so-called liberal peace tradition – i.e. a peace tradition with roots in the late nineteenth century and politically affiliated with the Liberal Party and the Social Liberal Party. In the following, PET's observations and analyses will be presented in outline.
According to PET's files, the history of the World Peace Council (originally, the World Council of Peace) dates back to August 1948 when a World Congress of Intellectuals for Peace was held in Wroclaw, Poland. At this congress the International Liaison Committee of Intellectuals was formed. Subsequently, this committee convened the First World Peace Congress in Paris where Les Partisans de la Paix (World Committee of Partisans of Peace) was established. In 1950 PET noticed that this committee was renamed the World Peace Council.
From the start PET adopted the hypothesis that the World Peace Council followed the Soviet line, and in a report from 1953 PET noted that the Third World Peace Congress, held in Vienna in December 1952, ‘solely is a tool for and means of implementing Moscow's policies.’Footnote 9 By the turn of the year 1957–1958, PET stated in a report that the president of the World Peace Council was the internationally-renowned French communist, physicist and Nobel Prize winner Frédéric Joliot-Jurie, while the secretary general was another French communist, Jean Laffitte. A PET case officer remarked that Moscow had ensured that nothing unexpected or hostile would originate from that quarter with this gallery of characters. In 1964, PET stated as a fact that the World Peace Council since its establishment:
… has without change been directed and controlled by the Soviets and the aim is still the same – to win the masses in neutral and non-communist countries for the defence of peace and in that way Soviet policy, and through numerous meetings and conferences the WPC has used every opportunity to attack the policies of the western powers all over the world.Footnote 10
As noted above, Supporters of the Peace was established in the fall of 1949 and immediately thereafter the new organisation became affiliated with the World Peace Council.Footnote 11 As early as the spring of 1950, PET observed that the organisation was ideologically under the influence of the Danish Communist Party (DKP). However, at this early stage PET was not able to prove its hypothesis. The clearest indication may have been the fact that the first chairman of the organisation, Edvard Heiberg, was a member of the DKP. A few months later, though, PET's view was confirmed. At a meeting in the Central Committee of the DKP, the chairman of the party, Aksel Larsen, declared that it was the ‘duty’ of all communists in Denmark ‘to assist Supporters of the Peace in Denmark and to do everything in their power to collect signatures against nuclear weapons.’ This was a reference to the ‘Stockholm Appeal.’Footnote 12 Later the same year Mogens Fog, who was known in PET as a communist, although he was not officially a member of the party, was elected chairman of the organisation.
According to PET, public support for the Supporters of the Peace declined from 1953. However, in 1957 PET noted that the organisation was still active since it supposedly collaborated with Finnish communists in planning the so-called Ostseewochen; a continual Eastern propaganda event between 1958 and 1975. In a report of 60 pages, which described communist activity in Denmark between November 1958 and January 1960, PET stated matter-of-factly that Supporters of the Peace during its entire existence had been a communist front organisation – i.e. a seemingly nonpartisan or non-political NGO which was more or less controlled by the Soviet Union with the aim of undermining Western societies.Footnote 13
PET took an interest in yet another peace organisation during the 1950s, the Danish Peace Conference (Dansk Fredskonference). According to its founders, it was formed in 1954 as a non-political NGO, but PET soon discovered that the DKP was a central player and some of the most active and influential members of the organisation were in fact known to be active in front organisations. One of these was Ester Brinch, a Danish translator who had close relations to the World Peace Council and was a member of the Danish branch of the Women's International Democratic Federation, an association defined by PET and other Western intelligence services as a front organisation.Footnote 14 Later PET realized that the Danish Peace Conference was involved in disseminating disinformation.Footnote 15 In 1969, the Conference was involved in the publication of a booklet called Colonel's Coup in Denmark? (Oberstkup i Danmark?). In the booklet it was stated that American Special Forces stationed in Europe were preparing a coup in Denmark. Furthermore, it was argued that the CIA had established a secret organisation with the aim of involving Denmark in a future war without consulting the government.Footnote 16 Evidently this information attracted the attention of PET, and in collaboration with the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (FE, Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste), PET investigated the information as well as the booklet. Subsequently the two services concluded that the booklet was a piece of disinformation: the US did have Special Forces stationed in Europe but the forces would be activated only in the event of a Soviet occupation of Western Europe.Footnote 17
During the 1950s and 1960s, PET investigated an additional group of peace movements. According to the security and intelligence service, these movements actually did try to promote international peace, arms reduction and international co-operation. One of the most prominent was the Campaign against Nuclear Weapons. As described above, it was formed in 1960 at a time of important changes in Danish political life. Following the Hungarian Uprising in 1956, the DKP was paralyzed by disagreements about the future political course of the party. The ensuing split led to the expulsion of Aksel Larsen, chairman of the party for a generation, in 1958. The following year, Larsen formed a new political party, the Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti, SF).Footnote 18 PET now raised the question: was the new party a masked communist party or was it in fact a new democratic party? PET did not have a clear answer and it, therefore, followed the development of the new party. The following year, Carl Scharnberg formed his Campaign and it soon became apparent that the new NGO shared the views of the Socialist People's Party on various matters: international relations, the arms race, Denmark's membership of NATO, etc. PET found the agreement noteworthy and the service mounted a surveillance operation that seems to have been intense during the first years. However, PET soon realized that the Campaign was not directed by the communists. While the communists did try to gain influence, the surveillance conducted by PET revealed that Carl Scharnberg and other leading members of the new NGO successfully prevented the communists from gaining any influence over the Campaign.Footnote 19
Another important Danish peace organisation during the1960s was the Danish branch of the War Resisters' International. The scattered sources in PET's archives indicate that the service's earliest interest in this group dates back to the late 1950s. However, in 1968 the Danish VKR government (consisting of the Liberals (Venstre), the Conservatives and the Social Liberals) issued a so-called government declaration according to which PET was no longer allowed to register Danish citizens ‘only’ on the basis of ‘legal political activity.’Footnote 20
As a consequence of this declaration PET shed almost all its files about the Danish branch of War Resisters' International. But PET refrained from shedding one particular type of source: the so-called subject cards which contained in abbreviated form the information which PET had collected and filed. Thus it is possible to reconstruct the content of the information gathered by PET during the 1950s and 1960s, although it is often impossible to ascertain the sources for the information. The general impression is that during this period the Danish branch of War Resisters' International agitated against Denmark's membership of NATO and the American war in Vietnam. Furthermore, the association was critical of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. As to its relationship to political parties, PET concluded that the association was in fact a nonpartisan NGO without close relations to the DKP or representatives of the Eastern bloc. In a report, presumably from 1970, a PET case officer summed up his view in the following words:
The association Aldrig mere Krig is a Danish branch of the international London based War Resisters International. Originally, the association was an organisation purely for pacifists but since the Second World War the association has been infiltrated by communists, and the international office should in any case be characterised as a true communist front organisation …
The Danish branch of WRI has to a certain extent kept its committee free of problematic elements …Footnote 21
A further important peace movement in Denmark during the 1950s and 1960s was the Danish branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. In the early years of the Cold War PET gathered information about the movement, but the intelligence service soon reached the conclusion that the League was a true nonpartisan organisation which was primarily involved in charity work. In 1952, a foreign intelligence service inquired if the League acted as a communist front organisation on Danish soil. A PET case officer answered:
… as the association is a pacifist association that works for international disarmament and international understanding it cannot be a surprise that the association seeks to adopt a position as a broker between East and West. Thus, the association is opposed to Denmark's membership of NATO just as the association agitates for admission of Mao–China in the UN and against Germany's rearmament. Yet, in its magazine of November 1952 the association emphasizes that the League is a strict democratic institution and there is no basis for questioning that statement.Footnote 22
In this way, during the 1950s and 1960s PET was able to identify two political tracks within the peace movement. One group of associations – Supporters of the Peace, Danish Peace Conference and the Women's International Democratic Federation – showed signs of being communist front organisations. They argued that they acted in favour of international disarmament and international understanding, while they allegedly criticised the East as well as the West. Yet, PET's surveillance provided evidence that these associations acted on behalf of and to the advantage of the Soviet Union in an attempt to undermine Danish membership of NATO. Another group of movements – the Campaign against Nuclear Weapons, the Danish branch of War Resisters' International and the Danish branch of Women's International League for Peace and Freedom – was considered to be independent – i.e. movements with roots in the liberal peace tradition from the late nineteenth century.
The Soviet Union goes on the offensive: the 1970s
At a conference in Moscow in October 1973 the World Peace Council encouraged its members to organise national umbrella organisations. The following year, the Cooperating Committee for Peace and Security was formed in Denmark with the declared purpose of ‘uniting Danish organisations’ in ‘the spirit that was expressed in the World Peace Congress in October 1973.’ Right from the beginning the new organisation became popular and more than 30 peace associations were soon affiliated, including the Danish branches of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, War Resisters' International, representatives from the Social Liberal Party, the Social Democratic Party and the youth organisation of the DKP (DKU: Denmark's Communist Youth).Footnote 23 The 1970s was, as is well known, an era marked by the New Left, anti-imperialism and criticism of the US arising from the Vietnam War.Footnote 24 This enabled Soviet-inspired organisations to attract support when criticising NATO, the US and armaments. This was unlike the situation during the 1950s, when Danish public and political life was generally very loyal and sympathetic to NATO.Footnote 25
The public did not hear much from the Cooperating Committee during the first years of the association's existence. Although the Committee was engaged in various political questions relating to the Cold War (discussions about the arms race, purchases of F-16 fighters, etc.), in retrospect it seems clear that the Committee in this period lacked a major single cause. This situation changed in 1977 when American President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States was prepared to produce the neutron bomb and to deploy it in West Germany. The announcement immediately created a stir. In West Germany, Chancellor Helmut Schmidt argued that the bomb ought not to be stationed only on West German soil, but in other West European countries as well. The general secretary of the West German Social Democratic Party, Egon Bahr, characterised the new bomb as a ‘symptom of a perverted mind’ and in Denmark, the Social Democratic Prime Minister Anker Jørgensen declared that the neutron bomb was ‘the Devil's work.’Footnote 26 Simultaneously West European peace movements were activated and in Denmark the Cooperating Committee experienced a breakthrough with a protest meeting outside the American Embassy, collecting signatures, and the publication of newspaper advertisements. Furthermore, the Cooperating Committee was supported by politicians representing the Social Liberal Party, the Social Democratic Party and the Christian People's Party (Kristeligt Folkeparti). The debate about the neutron bomb marked the beginning of the new peace movement in Denmark.Footnote 27
How should one characterize the Cooperating Committee? The Danish historian Nikolaj Petersen has argued that the Committee ‘with some justice was considered a communist dominated association.’Footnote 28 Søren Hein Rasmussen does not agree. He is of the opinion that such allegations are not ‘quite fair.’ Indeed, there were communists in the leadership of the Committee and in the affiliated associations, but according to Hein Rasmussen the Committee was ‘politically a very broad organisation where not least the Social Liberals had much influence.’ Furthermore, Hein Rasmussen describes it as ‘unfair’ that a prominent Social Democrat, Lasse Budtz, left the Committee in 1978 with the remark that the Committee only criticised the West. As it was the US that had developed the neutron bomb, Hein Rasmussen finds it ‘only natural’ that the Committee criticised the US.Footnote 29
The working hypothesis of PET from the start was that the Cooperating Committee was a communist front organisation. Prior to the abovementioned congress in Moscow in 1973, a prominent member of Denmark's Communist Party, Anker Scherning, had established a so-called ‘preparation committee’ to which some 40 organisations had been associated. PET case officers were of the opinion that Scherning acted on behalf of the DKP and that his intention was to create a public impression that the ‘preparation committee’ was a nonpartisan affair when it was, in fact, a tool in the hands of the DKP.Footnote 30
Following the 1973 congress, the World Peace Council arranged a meeting in Sofia in February 1974. According to the information in PET's archives, at this meeting it was decided to establish national movements tailored to local conditions. Subsequently, the Cooperating Committee for Peace and Security was formed in Denmark. The new organisation initially shared an address with the Danish branch of WAFA, the World Association of World Federalists (Een Verden). As such, one might believe that the new committee was a nonpartisan and idealistic association that worked to establish a world government. But according to the information in PET's archives the real reason why the Cooperating Committee was related to WAFA was that since the beginning of the 1970s the World Peace Congress had infiltrated WAFA. Whether or not this is true remains a task for future historians to determine, but the relationship between the two associations was nevertheless short-lived, with the Cooperating Committee moving to share with the National Association for Co-operation between Denmark and the Soviet Union (Landsforeningen til Samvirke mellem Danmark og Sovjetunionen). PET stated in its annual report for 1975 that even though the Cooperating Committee was not officially designated as the Danish branch of the World Peace Council, the Committee was considered to be the successor to the Danish Peace Conference, which PET considered to have been a front organisation. In addition, the PET report stated that the Committee showed all the traits of being a communist front organisation: there were communists in the leadership of the association and it also contained a group of so-called ‘progressive intellectuals.’ According to PET, ‘this last category is, as is well-known, the favourite cover in connection with the formation of subversive communist organisations.’Footnote 31
During the subsequent months and years PET followed the activities of the Cooperating Committee and the surveillance revealed that almost all the activities of the Committee were in keeping with the activities of the World Peace Council. After the public debate about the American neutron bomb, PET stated:
Until this day [August 1979] the Cooperating Committee has only attracted attention with an energetic effort against a possible production of a neutron bomb – a campaign that has been conducted in most of Western Europe inspired by the Central Committee of the Soviet Union through all available channels.
In Denmark this ‘active measure campaign’ has primarily been disseminated by the KGB-net. It has not been possible to disclose a direct connection between the Soviet Union and the Cooperating Committee, but it has been demonstrated that the KGB resident has relations with several individual members of the Committee's presidium through whom it has been possible to inspire various activities in the campaign against the neutron bomb. Thus it has been ascertained that following a KGB officer's conspiratorial visit to a member of the presidium there has been huge activity in the field immediately afterwards.Footnote 32
The troubled 1980s
The troubled 1980s began in 1979. After the signing of the CSCE Final Act (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) on 1 August 1975, the Soviet Union and United States viewed each other with increasing distrust. The Soviet Union had exploited détente to continue the arms race and to establish close relations with countries in the Third World as well as with socialist regimes in the near vicinity to the United States. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union had decided to export arms to its new friends. Thereafter, in 1977, the Soviet Union began deploying SS-20 medium-range ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe.Footnote 33 American decision makers followed the developments closely and they increasingly regarded the Soviet Union with suspicion. Then in 1977, the US announced that it would begin production of the neutron bomb. The following year, the US – through NATO – proposed a 3% increase in the defence budgets of NATO's member countries, thereby putting the Soviet economy under even further stress.Footnote 34 The renewed international tension peaked provisionally in December 1979. In the West, NATO adopted the so-called double-track decision offering the Warsaw Pact a mutual limitation on medium-range ballistic missiles and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, combined with a threat that in case of disagreement NATO would deploy 572 medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe, beginning in 1983. And in the East, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. These latter developments symbolized the beginning of what has been called the ‘Second Cold War.’Footnote 35
In Denmark nearly everyone considered these international developments as alarming. Prior to the adoption of the double-track decision, the Social Democratic government had made an effort to persuade its allies in NATO to postpone the decision, although without success. And following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the lion's share of the Danish public had condemned the Soviet action.Footnote 36 But one association, the Cooperating Committee for Peace and Security, was silent – not regarding the development within NATO, but regarding the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Many found it characteristic that the Cooperating Committee should launch a vigorous campaign against the US following the announcement that it would produce the neutron bomb, while subsequently abstaining from criticising the Soviet Union when it invaded Afghanistan. As a consequence, the Cooperating Committee came under public criticism for being biased in favour of the Soviet Union and a number of new peace movements flourished – e.g. No to Nuclear Weapons (Nej til Atomvåben) and Kvinder for Fred (Women for Peace).Footnote 37
How should the new movements be characterised? In his research the Danish historian Bent Jensen does not seem to distinguish between the new movements. Instead Jensen emphasized possible Soviet influence on peace movements in general, and during the last two decades has maintained that the communists did in fact exercise some degree of influence on the peace movements and on the national security policies of the Danish Social Democratic Party.Footnote 38 The Danish historian Poul Villaume does not fully agree with Bent Jensen. Thus, Villaume has argued that the peace movements of the 1980s were divided into two groups. Clearly, one was communist-oriented, but there was also another fraction including No to Nuclear Weapons and this fraction was, in the words of Villaume, ‘independent.’Footnote 39
As previously, PET's surveillance in the 1980s can be divided into two categories. The first included those groups considered to be communist-dominated, while the second contained those perceived to be the heirs to the abovementioned liberal peace tradition. Yet, PET's surveillance in the 1980s differed from its earlier surveillance. For the first time, PET case officers, although only for a short time, seem to have been of the opinion that communist front organisations were able to exercise some influence upon parts of the Social Democratic Party. The surveillance of peace movements was relatively intensive between 1980 and 1983. Then from 1984 the amount of information declined and the material which survives from the second half of the decade is fragmented. Presumably, this reflects two circumstances: (1) that the organisations kept under surveillance were less active in the late 1980s compared to the beginning of the decade; (2) that during the late 1980s PET was preoccupied with keeping the Danish squatter movement under surveillance.Footnote 40
In terms of PET's surveillance of peace movements in the 1980s, the starting point was the Cooperating Committee which PET considered to be a front organisation, although the security service had never been able to prove its hypothesis. As noted above, the Cooperating Committee was silent following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan whereas all political parties (apart from the DKP), various peace organisations and other NGOs condemned the Soviet invasion. It was only after massive public criticism that the Committee decided to dissociate itself from the Soviet action. Seen from the perspective of the Committee, the criticism was potentially alarming as it might eventually reduce public sympathy for the association, and it was presumably for that reason that the chairman of the Cooperating Committee chose to resign.Footnote 41 PET followed this development and reported that the outgoing chairman, the Reverend Hans Nebel, had been in contact with three Soviet intelligence officers while he had been head of the Cooperating Committee. After his resignation, Nebel continued to work as accountant for the Committee.Footnote 42
Hans Nebel's successor as chairman turned out to be a Danish citizen named Villum Hansen. Supposedly, Hansen was chosen because he was not a member of the DKP, but according to PET's case officers his candidature did not mark any change. Thus PET was able to prove that Hansen maintained contact with a KGB officer named Vladimir Merkulov; that Hansen had been a member of the DKP in his youth; that in the 1950s he had been in contact with a TASS correspondent who had been identified as an intelligence office; and that in 1979 he had been chairman at an international hearing with KGB participation. Finally, PET was convinced that Hansen had published a newspaper article after a meeting with a KGB officer, though the service was unable to prove it. In the article Hansen had supported the Soviet Union over the invasion of Afghanistan.Footnote 43
Simultaneously, PET monitored a number of contacts between leading members of the Cooperating Committee and the Soviet Embassy, including individuals who were identified as intelligence officers. In light of this information, in the spring of 1980 PET officially defined the Cooperating Committee as a front organisation. This happened at a time when PET obtained permission from the so-called Wamberg CommitteeFootnote 44 to register a Danish citizen on the basis that the individual in question was a leading member of the Cooperating Committee. In its application to the Wamberg Committee, PET stated that some 70% of the members of the board of the Cooperating Committee had connections to the DKP, the KGB, the World Peace Council, and the National Association for Co-operation between Denmark and the Soviet Union. According to the information in PET's files 78 Danes were registered between 1980 and 1991 because they had prominent positions in the Cooperating Committee.Footnote 45
PET and its predecessor REA (Rigspolitichefens Efterretningsafdeling, 1945–1951) had followed Soviet activities in Denmark since the end of the Second World War. In 1980, the security service took stock, describing the modus operandi of Soviet initiatives towards Denmark. According to PET, Soviet active measures – i.e. intelligence operations conducted with the aim of influencing Denmark's policies or actionsFootnote 46 – were coordinated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's International Department (ID) and carried out via co-operation between the Soviet Embassy and the DKP. But influencing the policies of a foreign country (i.e. Denmark), was a difficult task and it presupposed long preparation with no guarantee of success. Yet, one possible method was to influence public debates in Denmark. If such agenda setting conducted through, for example, peace movements or intellectuals turned out to be successful, representatives for the Soviet Union would contact the Danish government trying to change its policies in accordance with public opinion (and evidentially the Soviet Union). A PET case officer stressed in a memo that contacts established to ‘influence another country's decision-making process’ were considered to be ‘legitimate.’ As such, there was nothing illegal in trying to change Denmark's foreign policy to the advantage of the Soviet Union. PET, however, showed an interest in situations where the Soviet Union employed foreigners, e.g. Danes, to promote the interests of the Soviet Union without the individuals in question being aware that they were being so used.Footnote 47 Furthermore, in a report from the beginning of the 1980s PET stated that since 1959 the KGB had not only conducted espionage but also promoted Soviet foreign interests abroad. This was done by the production and spreading of disinformation (such as false or manipulated documents, photos, or the circulation of false rumours) and by executing propaganda operations. For these purposes the KGB had used Soviet representatives (the embassy, the consulate, the trade division, the military mission), Aeroflot, Inturist, Novosti, TASS, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Sovexport Film. According to PET, the goal was achieved if the allies of the United States were influenced in a way that led to the disruption of NATO.Footnote 48
As noted above, one consequence of the immediate silence of the Cooperating Committee following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the establishment of new peace associations, one of which was No to Nuclear Weapons. PET instantly noted that in its press material the new association tried to distance itself from the Cooperating Committee. At first, PET's case officers do not seem to have been convinced by this proclamation and some of PET's officers believed that No to Nuclear Weapons had been formed at the East German embassy. Yet PET's subsequent surveillance showed that the new association was indeed opposed to the Cooperating Committee, although the surveillance also revealed that the new association seemed to be more critical of the West than of the East. Presumably, the explanation was that the lion's share of the members of the new association were socialists with a deep-rooted anti-imperialist ideology, and although they believed that both the Soviet Union and the US conducted imperialistic policies, the Soviet Union was a socialist country.Footnote 49
The influence of the Cooperating Committee thus declined by the beginning of the 1980s. Later in the decade, PET observed that the Cooperating Committee established so-called buffer organisations. According to PET these were organisations that originated from organisations which had been revealed as front organisations and thereby lost their credibility. One of the most noteworthy buffer organisations was the National Campaign against Nuclear Missiles (Landskampagnen Stop Atomraketterne). Another was Teachers for Peace (Lærere for Fred). A third was Christians for Peace (Kristne for Fred). PET's surveillance showed that such organisations – both front and buffer organisations – appeared to be reliable only for a short time, and within a few years the organisations had lost their appeal.Footnote 50
The most noteworthy development in Danish foreign and security policy in the 1980s was the eruption of a conflict between the political right and left regarding Denmark's NATO policies. In spite of disagreements, the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party had constituted a steady majority concerning Denmark's alliance policies between 1949 and 1979. As the so-called Second Cold War arose, the Liberal Party moved to the ‘right’ whereas the Social Democratic Party moved to the ‘left.’ The latter never argued, let alone wished, that Denmark should leave NATO but the leadership of the party was concerned with the deteriorating international situation. At the beginning of the 1980s prominent figures within the party were influenced by arguments put forward by different peace associations. The conflict between the right-wing government and the left-wing opposition eventually resulted in a large number of so-called Danish ‘footnotes’ – i.e. reservations in various NATO communiqués between 1982 and 1988. As such, Danish Cold War politics was polarized and politicized in the 1980s.Footnote 51
In this context PET addressed the question of what caused this development in the Social Democratic Party? Already in the 1980s it was argued that some parts of the peace movement acted to the advantage of the Soviet Union and the question was therefore asked: was the Social Democratic Party influenced by the Soviet Union?
According to PET, the Soviet Union made an effort to influence the party through two channels, via the labour movement and via a faction within the party called Social Democrats against Nuclear Weapons and Militarism (Socialdemokrater mod Atomvåben og Militarisme). It should be noted that the faction Social Democrats against Nuclear Weapons and Militarism represented only a minority and it constituted an opposition within the party. It should also be stressed that neither PET's surveillance nor the present historical research has been able to prove that the faction exercised any influence upon the Social Democratic Party's political line. Yet, PET's surveillance did demonstrate that even though the faction as such was considered to be harmless, a few of its leaders had very close contacts to both the East German embassy in Denmark and to the KGB. In fact, one prominent member of the faction was cultivated by the KGB between 1983 and 1991.Footnote 52
In addition, PET revealed that at the beginning of the 1980s the Cooperating Committee established a buffer organisation called the Labour Movement for Peace. According to PET, this organisation was formed as a result of the fact that around 1980 the Soviet Union encouraged pro-Moscow communist parties in Western Europe to start working together with Social Democratic parties, trade unions, women's organisations and environmental associations. The aim was to infiltrate and influence these institutions. The new association put forward the old Eastern proposal that the North should be declared free of nuclear weapons. And within months parts of the labour movement as well as parts of the Social Democratic Party in Denmark did in fact support this proposal.
Was the Danish Social Democratic Party under Soviet influence? PET's archives do not provide us with a clear answer. As mentioned, a few Social Democrats were in close contact with intelligence officers from the Stasi and KGB. That was especially true with regard to a small number of politicians organised in Social Democrats against Nuclear Weapons and Militarism. But none of these were influential figures, and there is no evidence that the political line of the party was dictated by the Soviet Union. In fact, PET was of the opinion that Social Democrats against Nuclear Weapons and Militarism did not represent any security threat.Footnote 53
In my opinion we cannot explain the political line of the Social Democratic Party in the 1980s solely by studying PET's archives. A satisfactory analysis needs to go in depth into internal party policies as well as international developments from the late 1970s into the 1980s, and we need to study further the relations between the Western Social Democratic parties. It was, as is well-known, not only the Danish Social Democratic Party that challenged NATO's (and the US's) policies in the 1980s. The Danish and the Norwegian party as well as the West German party, and presumably also other Social Democratic parties in Western Europe, found it difficult the follow the course of confrontation – the policy of strength – that characterized NATO's policies towards the Warsaw Pact at the beginning of the 1980s. Following Ronald Reagan's victory in the 1980 US presidential elections a group of North West European Social Democratic parties established an informal forum for discussions, Scandilux. In this forum, the participating parties did not decide on what policies the parties were to follow but existing research leaves the impression that this particular forum may have had great influence upon the parties. However, it is up to future research to explain the changes that took place both in the Social Democratic parties and in international politics.
How were peace movements kept under surveillance?
It is difficult to describe in detail the methods employed by PET in its surveillance of peace movements during the early Cold War period as the lion's share of the archive material has been destroyed and the remaining material is often fragmented. However, the situation is much better as far as surveillance in the 1980s is concerned. When the Danish Commission of Inquiry was appointed in 1999 it seemed that PET had shed any material from the 1980s. Therefore it is possible to describe the methods used by PET in the surveillance of peace movements in the 1980s.
First and foremost it should be stated, that some 80% of the material in PET's files on the peace movements comes from so-called open sources, i.e. newspapers (e.g. Berlingske Tidende, Aktuelt, Jyllands-Posten, Land og Folk, Politiken, etc.), pamphlets (e.g. flyers, posters), information material (e.g. Hvad er NTA? [What is No to Nuclear Weapons?]) etc. Based on that kind of material PET was able to follow the activities of the associations which were kept under surveillance, especially the Cooperating Committee. It should be emphasized that the Cooperating Committee and every other peace organisation aimed at influencing public opinion and the political elite. Open sources were therefore essential in PET's investigation.
But of course PET, too, was interested in the character of the relationship between various peace associations and the Eastern bloc countries' representatives in Denmark. For that reason there are also examples of telephone tapping, monitoring of telexes and compiled reports of surveillance operations. PET also obtained court orders if they were required. However, with only a few exceptions it was not telephones belonging to the peace movements that were tapped. It was the phones belonging to their conversation partners.
PET also made use of human sources, especially in connection with its surveillance of the Cooperating Committee and associations formed by the Cooperating Committee. The Commission of Inquiry demonstrated that PET had some 20 human sources who confidentially informed PET about the activities in the Cooperating Committee, and its connections to the KGB in particular.Footnote 54
PET was not only informed via human and open sources, telephone tapping, monitoring and observation. At times in the 1980s PET also worked closely with the Danish Defence Intelligence Service, as the latter seems to have been much occupied with some of the international contacts of the Cooperating Committee. Furthermore, the material in PET's archive leaves the impression that PET maintained close relations with a number of foreign intelligence services and the material confirms that PET and its sister services exchanged information about the communist part of the peace movement.
Finally, it should be mentioned that PET was not simply a passive player which only gathered information about the peace associations. In the 1980s, PET was also an operational player. As described in the introduction to this article, in 1986 PET conducted a large-scale press campaign with the aim of exposing the fact that the Cooperating Committee was a communist front organisation.Footnote 55 Referring to a newspaper article that maintained that the World Peace Conference was a piece of communist propaganda arranged by the Cooperating Committee which was a communist front organisation, a communist remarked: ‘it is the most “up to date” information about the conference.’Footnote 56
Conclusions
During the early Cold War period PET viewed the Danish peace movement as divided into two categories. One group originated from the liberal peace tradition with ties to the Liberal Party and the Social Liberal Party. This part of the peace movement – e.g. the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and War Resisters' International – opposed armaments and Danish participation in military alliances. The other – Supporters of the Peace and the Danish Peace Conference, etc. – had a pro-Soviet outlook and was affiliated with the World Peace Council. According to the files in PET's archives this was also the situation in the 1980s: the communist part of the peace movement was led by the Cooperating Committee for Peace and Security, established in 1974, while the other part of the peace movement – e.g. No to Nuclear Weapons and War Resisters' International – insisted on criticising the East as well as the West. Yet, whereas the liberal peace tradition in the interwar years and to some extent also in the 1950s and 1960s was ideologically based on liberalism, the so-called ‘independent’ part of the peace movement during the 1980s had a socialist point of departure. According to PET, this meant that the new peace movement, although criticising the two blocs, seemed to be more critical of the US and NATO than the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact.
In public debate it has often been maintained that the security service kept the peace movement under surveillance because the government supported Danish membership of NATO. The information in PET's archives cannot confirm such allegations. On the contrary, there were many peace movements in Denmark which were not subject to PET's surveillance. The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom is an example. After PET had realized that this association acted as a neutral player within the context of the Cold War, the security service refrained from gathering information.
As to the Cooperating Committee, PET's surveillance substantiated that this association was a front organisation. Furthermore, information in PET's archives provides evidence that leading members were in close contact with Eastern intelligence officers. But the information also leaves the impression that the impact upon public opinion in Denmark was limited to the years around 1980 (the debate about the neutron bomb and the double-track decision). One important conclusion reached by PET was that front organisations only existed for a few years. When they were uncovered as associations that acted on behalf of the Soviet Union they became severely criticized. This was the reason why the front organisations soon died, whereupon so-called buffer organisations were established.
Notes
1. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989. PET-Kommissionens beretning bind 10 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009), 333.
2. Ibid. Also see Rasmus Mariager and Ditlev Tamm, Politiets efterretningsvirksomhed på det politiske område 1945–1989. Sammenfatning af PET–Kommissionens beretning. PET–Kommissionens beretning bind 16 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009).
3. Sune Pedersen, ‘Kampen for fred. Den liberale fredsbevægelse i Danmark 1919–1960’ (unpublished dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 2000), 6.
4. Ibid., p. 7. Michael Krasner and Nikolaj Petersen, ‘Peace and Politics: The Danish Peace Movement and Its Impact on National Security Policy,’ Journal of Peace Research 23, no. 2 (1986): 155–73.
5. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer. Politiske bevægelser i efterkrigstidens Danmark (Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag, 1997), 27. Cf. Morten Thing, Kommunismens kultur. DKP og de intellektuelle 1918–1960 (Copenhagen: Tiderne Skifter, 1993), 842–3; Danmark under den kolde krig 1945–1991. Den sikkerhedspolitiske situation (Copenhagen: DIIS, 2005), vol. 1, 383–92.
6. Morten Møller, ‘Den nye modstandsbevægelse. Mogens Fog og Fredens Tilhængere,’ Arbejderhistorie, no. 3 (2008), 47.
7. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer.
8. Johs. Nordentoft and Søren H. Rasmussen, Kampagnen mod Atomvåben og Vietnambevægelsen 1960–1972 (Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag, 1991); Klaus Jørgensen, Atomvåbnenes rolle i dansk politik. Med særligt henblik på Kampagnen mod Atomvåben 1960–68 (Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag, 1973); Danmark under den kolde krig. Den sikkerhedspolitiske situation 1945–1991, vol. 1–4, here vol. 1 (Copenhagen: DIIS, 2005). See also Hans Mouritzen, ‘Ydre fare fremmaner Vedels ånd. Dansk udenrigspolitik i det 20. århundrede,’ in Fra mellemkrigstid til efterkrigstid. Festskrift til Hans Kirchhoff & Henrik S. Nissen, ed. Henrik Dethlefsen and Henrik Lundbak (Copenhagen: MTP, 1998), 809–36.
9. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 268.
10. Ibid.
11. See also Morten Thing, Kommunismens kultur, 842–3.
12. In 1950, the World Peace Council issued an international appeal – the ‘Stockholm Appeal’ – to ban nuclear arms and to establish international control on nuclear arms. Magnus Hjort, Den farliga fredsrörelsen. Säkerhetstjänsternas övervakning av fredsorganisationer, värnpligtsvägrare och FNL-grupper 1945–1990 (Stockholm: SOU, 2002), 35–7.
13. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 270. On the Ostseewochen see Thomas Wegener Friis, Den nye nabo. DDRs forhold til Danmark 1949–1960 (Copenhagen: SFAH, 2001), 75–110.
14. The Danish branch of the Women's International Democratic Federation is analysed briefly in Iben Vyff, ‘Fred, men hvordan? Med 11 danske kvinder på freds- og delegationsrejse i Sovjetunionen i 1953,’ Arbejderhistorie 3, no. (2008): 52–66.
15. The British word for the Russian ‘dezinformatsia’: creation and dissemination of misleading or false information to injure the image of the targeted enemy. Defined in Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen, The Encyclopedia of Espionage (New York: Random House, 1997), 169.
16. Hanne Reintoft, Svend Jensen and georgjedde, Oberstkup i Danmark? (: Dansk fredskonference og Tværpolitiske Kontaktgrupper, 1969).
17. Ibid., 273; Morten Heiberg, Stay-behind og Firmaet. Efterretningsvæsen og private antikommunistiske organisationer i Danmark 1945–1989. PET-Kommissionens beretning, vol. 5 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009), 89f.
18. On Hungary 1956, Denmark's Communist Party, Aksel Larsen and the establishment of Socialist People's Party see Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af Danmarks Kommunistiske Parti. PET-Kommissionens beretning, vol. 6 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009); Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af politiske partier 1945–1989. PET-Kommissionens beretning, vol. 7 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009); Kurt Jacobsen, Aksel Larsen. En politisk biografi (Copenhagen: Vindrose, 1993).
19. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 23–41.
20. The government declaration, its background, legal status and consequences are thoroughly analysed in Morten Heiberg, ed., Regeringserklæringen og PET's registreringer på det politiske område 1968–1989. PET-Kommissionens beretning, vol. 3 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009); cf. note of dissent in Jens Vedsted-Hansen and Nicoline Nyholm Miller, Mindretalsudtalelse og juridiske notater. PET-Kommissionens beretning, vol. 15 (Albertslund: Justitsministeriet, 2009), 7–129.
21. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 276; cf. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, ‘Sikkerhedspolitik og fredsbevægelser under lup,’ in Nye fronter i den kolde krig, ed. Carsten Due-Nielsen, Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2010), 79–80.
22. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 279.
23. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer, 171.
24. On ‘68’ and the 1970s see Thomas Ekman Jørgensen and Steven L.B. Jensen, 1968 – og det der fulgte (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2008); Anette Warring, ‘Around 1968: Danish Historiography,’ Scandinavian Journal of History 33, no. 4. (December 2008): 353–65.
25. On this see Danmark under den kolde krig, vol. 1, 117–229.
26. Erik Boel, Socialdemokratiets atomvåbenpolitik 1945–88 (Copenhagen: Akademisk forlag, 1988), 131–44; Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer, 173–8; Nikolaj Petersen, Europæisk og Globalt Engagement 1973–2006. Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, vol. 6 (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2006), 196–8; Danmark under den kolde krig, vol. 2, 117–25.
27. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer, 175.
28. Nikolaj Petersen, Europæisk og Globalt Engagement 1973–2006, 282.
29. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer, 177.
30. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 292.
31. Ibid., 294.
32. Ibid., 296–7.
33. John W. Young and John Kent, International Relations since 1945. A Global History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 482–5; Richard Crockatt, The Fifty Years War. The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941–1991 (London: Routledge, 1995), 268–71; Geir Lundestad, East, West, North, South. Major Developments in International Politics since 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 112–7.
34. Nikolaj Petersen, Europæisk og Globalt Engagement; Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, ‘Economic Constraints and the Turn towards Superpower Cooperation in the 1980s,’ in The Last Decade of the Cold War. From Conflict Escalation the Conflict Transformation, ed. Olav Njølstad (London: Frank Cass, 2004), 83–117.
35. Richard Crockatt, The Fifty Years War, 268–71; Danmark under den kolde krig, vol. 3, 27ff., 72f.
36. Danish public debates on international developments 1978–1980 are analysed in Danmark under den kolde krig, vol. 2, 117–27 and vol. 3, 71–172.
37. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer.
38. Bent Jensen, Tryk og tilpasning. Sovjetunionen og Danmark siden 2. verdenskrig (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1987), 169; ibid., ‘Opportunismens årti i dansk sikkerhedspolitik,’ in Danmark i 1980’erne, ed. Jakob Holm and Ole Knudsen (København: Forum, 2003), 74–80.
39. Poul Villaume, Lavvækst og frontdannelse 1970–1985. Politikens og Gyldendals Danmarkshistorie (Copenhagen: Politiken og Gyldendal, 2005), 299.
40. On PET's surveillance of the Danish squatter movement see Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 375–441. It is shown that prominent Danish squatters were in contact with groups in West Germany who supported the Red Army Faction (RAF: Rote Armee Fraktion).
41. Søren Hein Rasmussen, Sære alliancer.
42. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 309ff., 321.
43. Ibid.
44. The Wamberg Committee was appointed by the then Danish government in 1964 to keep control on PET's registrations. On the topic see Morten Heiberg, ed., Regeringserklæringen og PET's registreringer på det politiske område 1968–1989.
45. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 30ff., 314.
46. Defined in Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen, The Encyclopedia of Espionage, 5.
47. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 305f.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 345f.
50. Ibid., 335ff.
51. Rasmus Mariager, ‘Den brede enigheds ophør. Om baggrunden for det sikkerhedspolitiske opbrud i begyndelsen af 1980erne – og noget om socialdemokratisk exceptionalisme i dansk samtidshistorie,’ Historisk Tidsskrift, 105, vol. 2 (2005): 553–83; idem., Historisk Tidsskrift, 106, vol. 2 (2006): 646–75; cf. Nikolaj Petersen, Europæisk og Globalt Engagement; Poul Villaume, Lavvækst og frontdannelser; Nikolaj Petersen, ‘“Footnoting” as a political instrument: Denmark's NATO policy in the 1980s,’ Cold War History 12, no. 2 (2012): 295–317.
52. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 350–7.
53. Ibid., 352–7.
54. Rasmus Mariager and Regin Schmidt, PET's overvågning af protestbevægelser 1945–1989, 307.
55. Ibid., 307–8.
56. Ibid., 331–2.