CHAPTER 4
Scandinavian collaboration for peace during the First World War
The outbreak of war in 1914 was a massive setback for the members of the international peace organizations. But while most of Europe was at war, the three Scandinavian countries remained neutral throughout. As a result, the Scandinavian peoples were brought closer together through joint declarations of neutrality and the first meeting of the Scandinavian kings since the peaceful dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905. In this chapter I will focus on Scandinavian collaboration for peace through the activities of three peace organizations, and delve into two definite outcomes of their group efforts: the erection of a monument to peace and the foundation of the Nordic Peace Association. Both came to fruition during the war, both are examples of close Scandinavian collaboration, and as such are important milestones in Scandinavian peace history.1
A fortnight after the outbreak of war, a crowd of 12,000 gathered on the border between Norway and Sweden for the unveiling of a peace monument in commemoration of a century of peaceful Scandinavian coexistence. Two weeks before the war ended, the Nordic Peace Association was constituted at a meeting in Copenhagen. These two clear markers of the Scandinavian peace movement’s work are a gateway to a closer study of how the war affected the peace cause and Scandinavian collaboration in particular. What brought about the collaboration? Did it arise due to or despite of the war? How does this development align with developments in society at large? Are there other instances of similar contemporary monuments being erected and how common was close, formal collaboration between Scandinavian associations in this period?
International background
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the liberal idea that international conflicts could be solved peacefully rather than by using military force gained ground very rapidly. A number of liberal peace societies were formed, and international collaboration between peace societies, MPs, and even at governmental levels, was expanded and institutionalized in the years running up to 1914.
In 1880 a peace society, the International Arbitration and Peace Association, was formed in Great Britain. Scandinavia’s three peace societies were inspired, and indeed prompted, by Hodgson Pratt, the founding member of the British society: Dansk fredsforening (the Danish Peace Society) in 1882,2 Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen (the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society) in 1883,3 and Norges fredsforening (Norwegian Peace Society) in 1895.4
In 1889 the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the first permanent forum for multilateral negotiations, was founded, and in the same year, for the first time since 1853, a peace conference was held; meanwhile, in 1891 the International Peace Bureau, the first international peace federation, was established in Berne. Two other international peace conferences, not arranged by the International Peace Bureau, should also be mentioned: the first two Hague conferences in 1899 and 1907. With these two conferences the peace effort was taken to a higher political level, while perhaps their most significant outcome was the foundation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 1899. There were plans for a third Hague conference in 1915, but it was cancelled because of the outbreak of the First World War.5
The three Scandinavian peace societies supported the international efforts and joined the International Peace Bureau in Berne. True, only a small number of the Scandinavian peace activists participated regularly at the international peace congresses, but the politically active members of the societies were also active at the inter-parliamentarian level. The early 1890s saw the foundation of inter-parliamentarian groups in the three Scandinavian national assemblies, and in 1907 the Nordic Inter-Parliamentarian Association was constituted. From 1910 this association held annual meetings, including throughout the war, and for this reason became an important arena for peace politics. The Scandinavian peace activists further supported the initiatives of the two Hague conferences in 1899 and 1907.6
Scandinavian collaborations before the war
The Scandinavian peace activists were looking for collaboration from the very outset. In 1885 the First Nordic Peace Congress was arranged, and by 1918 a total of nine Nordic peace congresses had been held. Prior to 1910 the average interval between meetings was five years, but after this the meetings were held every two to three years.7 Furthermore, the three Scandinavian peace societies shared an interest in a few central issues, the most important of which were questions of neutrality, arbitration, a new international legal system organized through a league of nations, disarmament, and the organization of the armed forces. For the peace societies these issues were of vital importance, be it at the national, Scandinavian, or international level.
The pacifists’ ultimate goal was a world without war. In order to attain this, they believed the creation of a new international system based on law instead of force was a fundamental prerequisite. This could come about in a number of ways, but principally they envisaged the establishment of an international court of arbitration and a league of nations, accompanied by general disarmament. There were disagreements within the peace societies, however, about the best means to reach the ultimate goal of world peace. One bone of contention was whether all military forces would have to cease to exist before a new international system based on a court of law was achievable, or if the reverse might be possible. This led to a series of internal power struggles in the three Scandinavian peace societies as elsewhere. Put simply, one group, the relative pacifists, were opposed to closing down the military, or possibly supported doing so gradually after the introduction of new international legal systems, while the other group, the absolute pacifists, wanted to root out militarism at any cost.8
Even if their ultimate goal was world peace, the three Scandinavian peace societies were also concerned with protecting national interests. The three societies considered their respective countries to be minor players in the international power struggle, and it was important for them to avoid being drawn into international conflicts. Preserving national sovereignty was vital; peacetime nonalignment and wartime neutrality were their watchwords. At the same time, the position of the small Scandinavian countries was seen as an advantage in terms of peace politics. The main reason for this was the fact that the countries refrained from engaging in international power struggles and from pursuing their interests aggressively.
The three Scandinavian peace societies developed in the same direction organizationally—an elected leadership, paying members, annual meetings, and membership publications—and all proceeded according to specific statutes and policy programmes. All three societies chose a more radical path after the turn of the century, and their respective statutes gradually came to resemble one another.9 Again, all three had a relatively stable, if small, circle of committed peace activists, who constituted the societies’ leadership. We may easily identify certain common characteristics among the key players in the societies: they were generally highly educated males (the societies encouraged female participation, but they only joined in small numbers); many of them were deeply religious, although more so in Norway and Sweden than in Denmark; a great many were also teetotallers; and, finally, a number of them were also politically active. They were primarily affiliated with liberal and radical parties, but after 1905 many of the old guard switched allegiance to the social democratic parties. They were not exclusively concerned with issues of peace, but also other contemporary liberal concerns such as women’s and workers’ rights.10
Preliminaries for a peace monument and the Nordic Peace Association
At the Sixth Nordic Peace Congress in 1910 two matters were addressed which would strengthen the bonds between the Scandinavian peace activists, and both of which would come to fruition during the First World War. Already at the commencement of the congress those present stressed the importance of a close collaboration between the Scandinavian peace societies. The chairman of the Danish Peace Society, Niels Petersen, asserted that the Scandinavian countries were particularly suited to take on the role as pioneers within the peace movement.11
On the last day of the congress, the Swedish peace activist Arvid Grundel tabled two propositions to be discussed at future Nordic peace meetings.12 The first called for a collection for a peace fund to be used to mark a century of Nordic peace in 1914, as well as to promote the cause of peace in general. Grundel argued that this extended period of peace—fifty years in the case of Denmark and a hundred years in the case of Sweden and Norway—was historically unprecedented, and that a commemorative fund of this kind would secure the three Scandinavian countries a place among the champions of peace.
Grundel’s other suggestion was to establish a permanent, pan-Nordic organization for the grassroots peace movement. This was not a new suggestion. As early as the First Nordic Peace Congress in 1885 there were loud calls for a joint organization for the Scandinavian peace activists.13 In 1896 the following was incorporated into the policy programme of the Norwegian Peace Society: ‘Together with the Swedish and Danish peace societies the Norwegian Peace Society constitutes a Nordic Peace Association, which seeks to arrange ordinary joint meetings every three years, alternating between the three countries.’14 The question of organizing this was brought up for discussion at four subsequent Nordic peace congresses, but without any concrete results.15
Grundel was inspired by the fact that the Nordic inter-parliamentarian peace effort had become better organized back in 1907. He considered it a great advantage to be able to promote and discuss the pacifists’ future tasks jointly instead of separately. Furthermore, he was of the opinion that Nordic meetings should be arranged at regular intervals, and that each peace society should be given an equal number of elected delegates with decision-making authority. A commission would prepare the meetings and continue work on approved issues between each meeting. These thoughts show a clear resemblance to the statutes of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Association of 1907.16
The congress in 1910 expressed sympathy with both of Grundel’s proposals, but not much happened until the summer of 1912, at the Seventh Nordic Peace Congress in Kristiania.17 At this meeting, a unanimous assembly agreed that a century of peace between Norway and Sweden was a cause for celebration, and that it should be commemorated with the construction of a peace monument on the border between the two countries, erected jointly by the three peace societies.18 The autumn of 1912 therefore saw work on the peace monument begin to make headway. However, work on the foundation of a Nordic peace association lay more or less dormant until 1917.19 One of the reasons Grundel’s suggestion to organize was not followed up may have been the fact that the pacifists were focused on getting the monument erected on the border in August 1914. Moreover, the outbreak of war brought other matters than the organization of Nordic collaboration to the fore for a time.20
In the winter of 1912–13, two proclamations were published. Norwegians and Swedes were called upon to participate in a nationwide rally to collect money for the erection of a peace monument in 1914.21 By this time it had already been decided that it would be located on the border crossing between Magnor and Charlottenberg, where it would be clearly visible from the main road and the railway alike. Since the intention was to make the site a venue for Swedish–Norwegian peace, temperance, and youth arrangements, the peace societies in both countries applied for permission to buy a sufficiently large area surrounding the peace monument from the two owners, Eda glassworks and the landowner Hans Raastad. Both parties were willing to sell, and thus the two peace societies became the owners of a plot of almost five acres. The next obstacle required the help of the two countries’ politicians. After the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905, a neutral zone between the two countries had been created where all construction required the authorization of the government. This was forthcoming without any problems worth mentioning, however.22
The inscriptions intended for the monument were made public in December 1912: ‘Henceforth war between Scandinavian brothers is inconceivable’ and ‘The people of Scandinavia erected this stone in 1914 in commemoration of 100 years of peace.’23 The first quote was taken from the Swedish–Norwegian King Oscar I’s speech during a student meeting in Uppsala in 1856.24 The peace activists hoped that the inscriptions would have a mobilizing effect on the Scandinavian population as a whole. The monument would also show the world that the Nordic people were an exceptionally peaceful people, united in the struggle for a better and more peaceful world.25
What was the Danish attitude to all this? The Danish Peace Society had at an early stage given their endorsement to the idea of a peace monument, yet when the plans became more concrete towards the end of 1912, the leadership of the Danish society nevertheless rejected the invitation to participate further. Even if there had been a century of peace between the three Scandinavian countries, Denmark had participated in two wars which still lingered in Danish memory. ‘The painful loss, which the last war has caused Denmark, does not diminish the joy of the 100 year peace. Nevertheless, it renders a collection of monetary funds in this country to a monument celebrating a 100 year period of peace impossible.’26 In particular, Denmark’s defeat in the war with Prussia and Austria in 1864 was still fresh in their minds. In 1914, fifty years after the defeat, a great deal of the Danish Peace Society’s work consisted of preventing the memory of this war from being exploited by militaristic agitators.27 But even if the Danish pacifists refrained from active participation in raising funds or erecting the peace monument, they still supported the effort. In Fredsbladet they expressed their ‘vibrant satisfaction and joy that our Norwegian and Swedish brothers have been able to realise the beautiful plan of building a peace monument at the Swedish–Norwegian border.’28 As a result of the Danish withdrawal, the inscription on the monument was changed to the following: ‘Norwegian and Swedish peace activists erected this monument in the year 1914 in gratitude for 100 years of peace.’29
What would this monument look like? Early in the process the discussion turned on whether the peace monument should be given the shape of Christ. The Scandinavian peace activists had taken the idea of a Christ monument from South America: in 1904 a statue of Christ, known as Christ the Redeemer of the Andes, was erected on the border between Chile and Argentina as a reminder of the peaceful outcome of the border dispute between the two countries.30 In 1912 the thought of a monument depicting Christ was rejected, and instead one without religious connotations was chosen.31
Norwegian and Swedish artists and architects were invited to submit proposals for the monument’s design.32 Twenty-four proposals were submitted, but none of them satisfied the monument committees in the two countries.33 The problem was solved when a unanimous monument committee decided on a proposal, submitted after the deadline, by the architect Lars Johan Lehming. A sketch of the peace monument was displayed publicly for the first time in September 1913.34 The work of the erecting the monument encountered no further obstacles, and the monument committee was exceedingly pleased with the final result, both in terms of design and cost.35
The peace societies would not have been able to carry out this project but for the assistance they received from their governments and the population at large. In Norway it was straightforward business for the peace society to gather support from the country’s politicians: they were enthusiastic from the beginning, and both the permit to build the monument and funding to the tune of 2,000 kroner were passed without debate in the Storting. The Swedish peace activists had to walk a more difficult path. They also received a building permit and a donation of 2,000 kronor, but none of it came easily. In addition, the Swedish peace activists were actively opposed by the conservative, right-wing press. The national differences were also reflected in the fashion in which the funds were acquired. In Norway the amount was collected with relative ease because of the generosity of a few individuals. In Sweden, however, the peace societies were forced to spend a great deal of time and resources in order to collect the full amount. Fortunately, the results were reassuring: 20,000 Swedes donated money.36
A few people may be singled out as the driving force in this process. In Norway, the chairman of the peace society, Bernhard Hanssen, was undoubtedly the mastermind behind the project.37 In Sweden, it may have been Arvid Grundel who hit upon the idea of commemorating the hundred years’ peace, but there were two other Swedes, Knut Sandstedt and Carl Sundblad, who distinguished themselves in the work on the peace monument.38
A unique peace monument at the outbreak of the world war
On Sunday 16 August 1914 some 12,000 people were gathered at the border between Magnor in Norway and Charlottenberg in Sweden to attend the dedication of the peace monument. A century had gone by since the signing of the Convention of Moss, and since that time the two countries had been at peace.39 At the outbreak of the First World War several people raised the question of whether the dedication ceremony should be delayed until a more appropriate time. However, in Fredsfanans ekstranummer, which was published shortly after the outbreak of war, all peace activists were encouraged to appear on the Norwegian–Swedish border on 16 August. The gathering would now not only mark a century of Nordic peace, but also the Scandinavian pacifists’ protest against the war, the publication proclaimed.40 Enclosed with the printed programme handed out at the dedication was a postcard depicting the peace monument.
The artist, one J. Swedin, was inspired both by symbols from antiquity as well as more recent peace symbols. Palm leaves encircle the entire picture, and form a victory wreath where a young, athletic man rests a broken sword on his knee. The peace monument is pride of place in the middle of the picture. In the background, the sunrise is flanked by the Peace Palace in The Hague. The Norwegian and Swedish flags are placed in the two top corners.41
FIGURE 1: A postcard by J. Swedin. This was handed out at the dedication of the peace monument, 16 August 1914.
The monument itself consisted of a solid plinth with two columns culminating in two figures, and is 17 meters high in its entirety. The plinth, which is shaped to function as a pulpit, symbolizes the two countries’ mutual origins, both culturally and historically. Two columns reach up from the plinth to symbolize the peoples of the two independent nations. At the top of the monument are two male figures—Norway and Sweden—holding hands. Several fasces are also carved around the two figures. The whole monument thus symbolizes peace and good neighbourliness between two independent nations with common cultural and historical origins.42
The Norwegian Peace Society and the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, which were responsible for arrangements, had expected a turnout of 3,000, but the number proved to be much larger, around 12,000. This was a significant number compared to other large, popular gatherings both before and after at peace society arrangements and elsewhere—clear evidence that the pacifists had succeeded in mobilizing the people. The visitors made their way either independently from nearby areas or by train from Kristiania and Stockholm. Among those present were as many as seventy Norwegian and ten Swedish MPs. On the other hand, neither country’s prime minister nor representatives of the royal families were present.43
The programme was long and varied. National anthems were sung, and a festival cantata was performed in honour of the occasion. In addition to the musical interludes, a series of telegrams were read out and speeches were given, by the Norwegian MP Jørgen Løvland among others.44 He called attention to the fact that the Scandinavian position of neutrality was the reason that everyone was willing to go through with the dedication as planned, despite the outbreak of war. His speech was marked by optimism: ‘This is one of the greatest solemn occasions any of us present have ever experienced! Norwegian and Swedish men and women have come together in their thousands to greet one another beneath this sign of peace. A beautiful dream has come true.’45
Denmark was also included as part of a joint Scandinavian peace effort by Løvland and other speakers at the dedication. ‘Denmark belongs in this commemoration. The country has seen its share of affliction, but the three Nordic countries have long been at peace with one another, and we hope and wish it will always remain so,’ Løvland declared.46 The Swedish MP A. Åkerman asked that they spare a thought for Denmark, since the country was closer to the fighting in Europe than were Norway and Sweden. He concluded his speech with ‘a cheer for Nordic agreement and a happy future for the Nordic people.’47 Even if the Danish Peace Society had declined to participate actively in the process leading up to the dedication, the Danes were also represented among the speakers: ‘Denmark has experienced a great deal of affliction, but we joyfully welcome the free friendship and brotherhood between Sweden and Norway—which have been displayed so beautifully in these difficult times beneath the gathering storm,’ the Danish MP Andr. Th. Grønborg proclaimed.48
Unlike the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, the Norwegian Peace Society had faced neither challenge nor criticism from the conservative right. A telegram was sent to dedication from both the Norwegian royal family and the government, while neither the Swedish royal family nor the Swedish government sent one. The large turnout of Norwegian MPs, as well as the Norwegian Storting’s unconditional support prior to the dedication, shows that there was greater and broader political support for the peace monument in Norway than in Sweden. Militarism was much stronger in Sweden, where the national peace association met with active resistance from the conservative Right, both in the press and the Riksdag.49 However, the upper crust of Swedish politicians was not entirely absent. A telegram arrived from former Prime Minister Karl Staaff, who had resigned on 17 February 1914.50
The circumstances of the dedication lent a solemn air to proceedings. The dedication of the peace monument did not go unnoticed in the Scandinavian press. Most of the leading newspapers and many of the local ones filed reports on the occasion. A point repeatedly made was the contrast between the unveiling of a peace monument while at same time European soldiers met in battle on the Continent.51
A drawing that illustrates this well appeared in the Norwegian satirical publication Tyrihans after the dedication. Entitled ‘In war and peace! 1814–1914’, with the subtitle, ‘They knew what they did, these people of Moss. Hereafter impossible for the brothers to fight! Motto: Yes, we love Thou old and free!’, it refers to the Convention of Moss of 1814 and blends together the two countries’ national anthems. The drawing shows a model of the peace monument being threatened by dark clouds while warplanes drop bombs. A Norwegian farmer in tattered national dress and somewhat better turned-out Swede, both drunk, symbolize Norway and Sweden. Between them we see a smiling and unsuspecting sheep with closed eyes, and the symbolism is clear. The pacifists are being referred to as ‘peace sheep’, unable to face reality (see Figure 2 next page).52
Of course, the building of monuments was not a phenomenon limited to the beginning of the twentieth century, and their purpose has also remained much the same down the ages: to serve as a reminder of important people, ideas, and events for their own and future generations. However, monuments were most often erected to celebrate victory in war or to remember the fallen. This was especially evident after the First World War. Peace monuments pure and simple, however, were far less common.53 Only the aforementioned example from South America can be considered a similar effort. Thus the Scandinavian peace monument was quite unique in a European context in the period around the First World War.
The Scandinavian activists wanted to introduce a tradition of annual peace rallies on the border. This was to prove difficult, but several major peace gatherings were arranged after 1914.54 In September 1915, 5,000 people attended the first large gathering after the dedication. The following year a new peace rally was held that numbered almost 10,000. In 1917 and 1918 no rallies were held, largely due to the course of the war. In the summer of 1919 again 4,000 people met at the border, where they also could celebrate that the war was finally over.55
After 1919 it seems there was a steep decline in the popularity of the peace rallies, with a few exceptions. In 1934, the peace publications could inform their readers that approximately 1,000 people had shown up at the border to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the monument’s unveiling, and in 1939 6,000 people were gathered to mark its twenty-fifth anniversary. The chairman of the Norwegian Peace Society, the headmaster Ole Fredrik Olden, emphasized in his 1934 speech that there were an abundance of war monuments in the world, while only two peace monuments existed: one on the border between Sweden and Norway and the other on the border between Argentina and Chile. The same point was made by the Norwegian foreign minister, Halvdan Koht, in his speech five years later.56 After the gathering in 1939, the Norwegian peace publication Verden Venter announced that when Germany had declared war on Poland it was a repetition of events in 1914, with the only difference that now war had broke out a fortnight after the meeting, instead of a fortnight prior, as had been the case in 1914.57 In 1945, at the end of the Second World War, again approximately 13,000 people gathered to attend a large peace rally at the border.58
FIGURE 2: A satirical drawing of the peace monument in Tyrihans 34/1914.
The peace monument and surrounding area have gradually declined in use by the Scandinavian peace societies, and in 2005 the land they had purchased in 1914 was sold to the counties of Eda and Eidskog.59 The jubilee in 2014 could be an opportunity for a new historic border meeting. Would it be possible to gather well over 10,000 people here once again, just as in 1914 and 1945?
Peace societies—membership and peace gatherings
How large was the membership of the three societies during the First World War? When it comes to the International Peace Association’s growth in membership, Nigel Young has drawn attention to the fact that they experienced an increase until 1914, and then declined during the war.60 Is this pattern mirrored by the three Scandinavian peace societies in this period?
The Danish Peace Society had a relatively stable membership of approximately 3,500 during the war. In contrast to the Danish society, the Norwegian Peace Society and the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society saw an increase in membership after 1905, which reached a peak towards the end of the First World War. There was, however, a significant difference between the two, in that the Norwegian Peace Society probably never reached more than 800 active members in this period, while the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society could proudly point to a membership of more than 20,000 in 1917, of whom approximately half were direct members. Both the Swedish and the Norwegian societies quickly lost ground after the war, ending up with 4,000 members in the case of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society, and fewer than 200 in the case of the Norwegian Peace Society. The Danish Peace Society only experienced a marginal increase in membership during the war, having actually reached its peak as early as 1899 with an estimated 9,000 members. However, the Danish society did not experience any dramatic decrease after the war.
Nigel Young’s conclusions about developments in membership of the European peace associations are therefore not borne out by the Scandinavian peace societies. All three societies, and in particular the Norwegian and Swedish, went through a period of decline around the turn of the century, at a time when the peace movement in Europe was otherwise growing rapidly. In addition, the Scandinavian societies saw their membership increase throughout the First World War, in particular the Swedish society, while the international peace movement in general declined sharply from 1914 onwards. The Scandinavian peace societies only faced dwindling numbers after the war, at a time when the tide was turning in the rest of Europe.61
Peace was discussed thoroughly at Nordic peace congresses and by the peace societies during the First World War. Before the outbreak of war the Danish peace activists were the leading lights of the Scandinavian peace discourse. This changed during the war. The Danes grew more sceptical and passive, while the peace effort was further developed and supported to a larger extent by the Norwegian Peace Society and the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society. It was vital for Danes after 1914 to avoid provoking Germany, since they had an unresolved border dispute with their considerably larger neighbour on their hands.
The Eighth Nordic Peace Congress in Copenhagen in 1915 was the first such to be held after the war began, a fact that dominated proceedings. The Danish chairman emphasized that the peace activists should take care not to lose courage due to the war, referring specifically to the neutrality policy of the three countries: ‘The war has created a common bond between the Nordic people like never before. The absolute neutrality policy that all three countries subscribe to has contributed to this to a large extent.’62
Two years later the Ninth Nordic Peace Congress took place in Kristiania. During his opening speech the Norwegian chairman, Bernhard Hanssen, pointed out that the main goals of this congress were organizational. First, they were to discuss, and hopefully adopt, his proposals for Nordic Peace Association statutes, as a more tightly constructed organization would tie the three peace societies closer together. The second organizational matter had a larger objective related to foreign policy, namely the establishment of a league of nations.63 During the war, thoughts of a future peace confederation were put in more concrete terms, and the peace activists realized that it might be up to the great powers to take the first step.64
The establishment of the Nordic Peace Association in 1918
The Nordic Peace Association was founded at a meeting in Copenhagen in 1918. From the outset the association comprised the Norwegian Peace Society, the Danish Peace Society, and the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society—it had been a long process for the three peace societies to reach this point. In 1917 Bernhard Hanssen had presented a proposed set of statutes for a future alliance between the peace societies. Hanssen largely continued Grundel’s line from 1910, both having been inspired by the foundation of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentarian Association in 1907. Indeed, Hanssen used the statutes of this association as a model when drawing up his proposal, which was adopted more or less unaltered.
The purpose of establishing the Nordic Peace Association was mainly to provide the Scandinavian collaboration with a tighter organization, forge closer bonds between the three peace societies, make more effective use of the meetings’ time, and instil greater continuity into their peace work. This would give the three societies a stronger position through joint statements to national governments, as well as with international peace congresses and the International Peace Bureau in Berne.
The main difference now was the adoption of statutes that would ensure the agendas for Nordic meetings were properly prepared, while an elected board of nine would see to it that the decisions taken at Nordic meetings were edited and followed up afterwards. The meetings were to be held every three years, and the societies would be represented by an equal number of appointed delegates. Despite pressure from the Swedish society, which was far larger than the other two at that point, the Danes and Norwegians insisted on equality between the three societies—it would contribute to giving the decisions of the Nordic meetings greater impact. The similarities between the statutes of the Nordic Peace Association and the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Association led to some disagreement between the three peace societies. Both the Norwegians and the Danes supported Hanssen’s proposed statutes; the Swedes were rather more sceptical, however. They felt that having an elected board with an equal number of delegates would put power in the hands of a small number of people and make the association undemocratic, and they thus made several—unsuccessful—attempts to have the statutes changed before eventually acceding to the wishes of the two other societies. This capitulation may seem surprising, considering the fact that Sweden’s was decidedly the largest society. In this context, however, their strength in numbers may in many ways have constituted a weakness in the negotiations: they already collaborated well with other societies in Sweden, and were therefore less dependent on a Nordic association to increase their influence. This, instead, was far more important for the smaller societies in Denmark and, in particular, Norway. The difference in relative strength, and what the various societies could hope to gain from the formation of a Nordic association, may have given the Norwegian and Danish societies an incentive to take quicker action and be more interested in driving the process forward. The Swedish society thus found itself in a situation where it was forced to accept or reject a proposal from the other parties, and as it was equally interested in forming a Nordic alliance, it therefore chose to accept the proposal despite the differences of opinion regarding the organizational model.65
How unique was the founding of the Nordic Peace Association? The Scandinavian activists were certainly inspired by the foundation of the Nordic Inter-Parliamentary Association in 1907. However, few other Nordic alliances were formed in the period immediately after 1905: the decade prior to 1905 having been something of an Indian summer for pan-Scandinavian collaboration, the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden put a decisive stop to this collaboration, and the period after 1905 has therefore been described as a Nordic winter. The reluctance over Scandinavian collaboration was particularly pronounced in Sweden, which experienced a wave of anti-Scandinavianism after the dissolution of the Union that was to last until after the outbreak of the First World War.66 The generally poor climate for Scandinavian collaboration between 1905 and 1914 did not apply to the peace societies, however: their collaboration for peace did not stagnate; it only increased in intensity and vigour after 1905. After the peaceful dissolution of the Union, the Norwegians could put aside the fight for national independence and focus on the peace effort. The dissolution of the Union also provided the Swedish peace activists with a practical goal. Besides, they were presumably the least disappointed Swedish group when it came to the disruption of the union and its peaceful end. Therefore the break did not create lasting enmity between the three peace societies—rather the opposite.
The experience of the First World War brought the three countries closer together again, in this and in other respects. As early as 8 August 1914 the three countries signed an agreement jointly expressing their desire to stay out of the conflict by maintaining their neutrality. During the war, the countries’ ministries of foreign affairs collaborated closely, and the first meeting of the Scandinavian kings since 1905 was held in December 1914; in 1917 another such meeting was arranged; and there was frequent contact between the three countries’ inter-parliamentary groups throughout the war.67
Due to this closer alliance, several new Nordic associations had been formed by war’s end: 1916, for example, saw the foundation of the Nordic Women’s Suffragette Coordinating body; 1918 the foundation of Nordic Administrative Society, the Nordic Cooperative Society, and the Nordic Music Union; while the following year saw least eight more associations come into existence, among them the Nordic Writer’s Council, the Nordic Tuberculosis Society, and the Nordic Prohibition Committee. In addition, the first three Nordic societies were formed in Denmark, Sweden and Norway this year.68 Thus the founding of the Nordic Peace Association cannot be said to be a unique in its day, but rather part of a general trend towards a closer and more formalized collaboration between the three Scandinavian countries on a wide range of issues during the First World War.
Developments after 1918
The peace activists had gradually adjusted to the international situation during the course of the war. This is most evident in connection with the subsequent foundation of the League of Nations. After the US joined the war on the side of the Entente Powers and all signs pointed to German defeat, the Danes, for example, changed strategy on a future peaceful alliance between states, shifting from a passive to an active attitude in the matter. After the Tenth Nordic Peace Congress in 1919 the activists therefore urged their respective governments to join the League of Nations,thus departing from the principle of absolute neutrality, given the fact that the League Covenant required member states to support a policy of collective security. The idea that it was necessary to participate in order to steer the League of Nations in a more pacifist direction carried the most weight.69
In March 1920 the Danish Rigsdag voted unanimously to join the League of Nations. The neighbouring countries displayed no such agreement. In Norway, 100 MPs voted for and 20 against joining, while in Sweden 238 MPs voted for and 114 against.70 As seen, the Scandinavian peace activists supported the decision to join even if they differed on several counts as to how the world should be organized in order to achieve a lasting peace. However, the foundation of the League of Nations after the war changed the role of the peace societies, as issues related to making peace policy were moved to a higher and more formalized political level. However, the three peace societies still continued arranging Nordic peace congresses at regular intervals during the interwar years.71
Increased Scandinavian collaboration for peace during the First World War
The First World War was a time when the three Scandinavian peace societies flourished, and with them their collaborative efforts. Since the three countries managed to remain neutral and therefore stayed out of the actual fighting, the peace effort found excellent conditions for growth and was politically important to many Scandinavians during this period. The First World War therefore brought the pacifists closer together. Further, the outbreak of war led to closer collaboration between the three Scandinavian countries on the inter-parliamentarian and government levels, and between the three royal houses. These developments were supported by the Scandinavian peace activists.
16 August 1914 was the date for the dedication of the peace monument. The outbreak of the First World War put a damper on the occasion and could have caused a delay; that this did not happen was largely due to the advanced stage reached in the planning. It was considered important that the monument be unveiled a hundred years almost to the day after the signing of Convention of Moss. In addition, the Scandinavian countries’ declarations of neutrality played a part. Ultimately the dedication turned out to be both a celebration of a century of Scandinavian peace and an occasion for anti-war protest. The peace activists wanted to unite the Scandinavian people through the peace monument, and remind them to stand together as a people of peace. The monument was the fruit of thorough preparations and remains one of the most prominent examples of the close collaboration between the Scandinavian peace societies—it may have been the Norwegians’ and the Swedes’ show, but they were assisted by the Danes. Thus the peace monument on the border between Norway and Sweden is unique in the sense that it is the result of collaboration between peace activists that transcended borders, commemorating an extended period of piece. As such it is unrivalled in Europe in the period between 1900 and 1920. The other monuments of the day were largely war memorials.
The foundation of the Nordic Peace Association in 1918 represents, aside from the construction of the peace monument, the most obvious example that the Scandinavian peace activists developed even closer and more formalized collaboration during the world war. With the foundation of the Nordic Peace Association the three peace societies secured a more cohesive organization, and the goal for the future was for the groups to stand more united in their efforts after the end of the war. However, the process leading up to the foundation of the Nordic Peace Association was both long and arduous. An important initiative was taken in 1910, but until 1914 the peace activists focused on the peace monument. What concerned the societies after the outbreak of war was in particular the question of a future league of nations. Thus organizational matters remained in the background for a time. If it had not been for the outbreak of war in 1914, the Nordic Peace Association would most probably have been created much earlier. It was quite common to form various Scandinavian associations in the time around 1918, and in this respect the formation of the peace activists’ alliance is only one of many in this period.
The Scandinavian countries’ entry into the League of Nations guaranteed that the peace effort moved up to a higher political level, and the three peace societies ended up with less influence after the war. Thus it could be useful to consider the period from 1914 to 1918 as the heyday of the peace activists in Scandinavian peace history. In the peace monument they had a tangible symbol of their struggle for peace; their total membership reached its peak; and they were certain of a more formalized collaboration thanks to the foundation of the Nordic Peace Association. After the First World War, membership dwindled and the delegates to the League of Nations took up many of the societies’ core concerns. Nevertheless, the peace monument still exists, and 2014 may be an appropriate moment to acknowledge the peace activists’ legacy.
Notes
1 This article is based on my Ph.D. dissertation, 40 års kamp for fred. Tre fredsforeninger i Skandinavia 1882–1922 (diss.; Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 2011).
2 Freden, Tillæg A/1883; Fredrik Bajer, Dansk fredsforenings historie (Copenhagen: Gjellerup, 1894), 5–7; Kurt Risskov Sørensen, Fredssagen i Danmark 1882–1914 (Odense: Odense universitetsforlag, 1981), 18–20; Arne Hytter Nørregaard, Fredsbevægelsen i Danmark 1864–1914 (MA diss.; Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet, 2008), 24; Niels Petersen & Ingvard Nielsen, Halvtreds aars fredsarbejde (Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1932), 11–14.
3 Per Anders Fogelström, Kampen för fred. Berättelsen om en okänd folkrörelse (Stockholm: Bonnier, 1971), 34–40; Svenska Freds- och Skiljedomsföreningen, Jubileumsskrift 1883–1933 (Falun: Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen, 1933), 13.
4 Mats Rønning, Fredsfaar i gjentatt strid – historien om den folkelige fredsbevegelsen i Norge før 1914 (MA diss.; Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 2005), 28–30; Jens Evang, Norges fredsforening 1894–1937 (MA diss.; Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 1938), 19–28; Halvdan Koht, Freds-tanken i Noregs-sogo – Noreg i den samfolkelege rettsvoksteren (Oslo: Samlaget, 1906), 111–114; Oscar J. Falnes, Norway and the Nobel peace prize (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938), 50–54.
5 Christian Lous Lange, Det interparlamentariske forbund. Tyve aars historie (Kristiania: Det norske Stortings Nobelkomité, 1909), 9–10; Rainer Santi, 100 years of peace making (Geneva: International Peace Bureau, 1991); Danske Voldgiftskonventioner (Copenhagen: Udenrigsministeriet, 1912), 5–6; Anna Nilsson, Fredsrörelsens ABC: data och fakta (Stockholm: Informationsbyrån Mellanfolkligt samarbete för fred, 1934), 61. Between 1889 and 1914 the Interparliamentary Union arranged 18 congresses, as opposed to 20 international peace congresses during the same period.
6 Santi 1991, 13–15; Nilsson 1934, 20–21; Årsbok för de Nordiska interparlamentariska grupperna, andra årgången 1919 (Stockholm, 1920), 35; Aarbog for de Nordiske interparlamentariske grupper, fjerde aargang 1921 (Copenhagen, 1922), 5; Edvard Wavrinsky, Några personligen minnen från det interparlamentariska arbetets första tid (Stockholm, 1920); Fredrik Bajer, Det nordiske interparlamentariske delegeretmødes forhistorie (Copenhagen: Schultz, 1908); Ruth Hemstad, Fra Indian Summer til nordisk vinter, Skandinavisme, skandinavisk samarbeid and unionsoppløsningen (diss.; Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 2008), 473–5, 541, & 548; Ringsby 2011, 116, 208–210, & 382–383.
7 The Nordic peace meetings are discussed at length in Ringsby 2011, 119–174. The nine Nordic peace meetings until 1918 were as follows: Gothenburg (1885), Copenhagen (1890), Stockholm (1895), Skien (1901), Copenhagen (1904), Stockholm (1910), Kristiania (1912), Copenhagen (1915), and Kristiania (1917).
8 Historical research has utilized several terms in explaining the difference between the two movements. In Scandinavian peace research, a line has been drawn between realists and idealists, or between those who advocated defence and those who advocated peace. Those wedded to peace have also been considered utopists, radicals, and pacifists. See Nils Ivar Agøy, ‘The Norwegian Peace Movement and the Question of Conscientious to Military Service 1885–1922’, in Katsuya Kodama & Unto Vesa (eds.), Towards a Comparative Analysis of Peace Movements (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1990), 89–104; Martin Ceadel, Thinking about Peace and War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 4–5 & 101–165; Martin Ceadel, Semi-Detached Idealists—The British Peace Movement and International Relations 1854– 1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 7; Ringsby 2011, 2–3.
9 Ringsby 2011, 40–49.
10 Ibid. 115–116 & 382–383.
11 Fredsbladet, 7/1910. Niels Petersen (1858–1933) was chairman of the Danish Peace Society between 1910 and 1928, and a Danish MP between 1913 and 1929 for the Danish Social Liberal Party (Det Radikale Venstre).
12 Arvid Grundel (1877–1959) was active in the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society until 1911, when he became one of the founders of the new Swedish Peace Society.
13 Freden, 32/1885; Beretning om det første nordiske fredsmøde, holdt i Gøteborg den 17.–19. August 1885 (Ringsted, 1885), 19–20.
14 Det Norske Fredsblad 15/1896.
15 Ringsby 2011, 123–35.
16 Fredsbanneret, 6/1911; Ringsby 2011, 208–210.
17 Freden 8/1910; Fredsfanan, 9–10/1910; Fredsbanneret, 8/1910; Carl Sundblad, Svenska fredsrörelsens historia: åren 1904–1919, iii (Stockholm: Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen, 1919), 139.
18 Fredsbanneret, 7–8/1912; Fredsfanan, 7–8/1912; Fredsbladet, 8/1912.
19 Sundblad 1919, 138–139; Fredsbladet, 8/1910; Fredsbanneret, 6/1911 & 9/1911.
20 Ringsby 2011, 214–215.
21 Fredsbanneret, 12/1912; Fredsfanan, 2/1913; Sundblad 1919, 236–240. In Sweden, fifty-four people had signed the petition, while the Norwegian petition was signed only by the chairman of the Norwegian Peace Society, Bernhard Hanssen.
22 Fredsfanan, 2/1913; Carl Sundblad, Fredsmonumentet på norsk-svenska gränsen (Stockholm: Wilhelmsson, 1916), 4; Sundblad 1919, 243.
23 Fredsfanan, 12/1912; see also Invigningen av fredsmonumentet å svensknorska gränsen den 16 august 1914 (Stockholm: Wilhelmssons, 1914), 3.
24 Bo Stråth, Union og demokrati: dei sameinte rika Noreg–Sverige 1814–1905 (Oslo: Pax, 2005), 209.
25 Fredsfanan, 12/1912.
26 Fredsbladet, 1/1914.
27 Fredsbladet, 8/1914; Claus Bjørn & Carsten Due-Nielsen, ‘Fra helstat til nationalstat: 1814–1914’, Dansk udenrigspolitisk historie, iii (Copenhagen: Danmarks Nationalleksikon, 2003), 236–263.
28 Fredsbladet, 1/1914.
29 Invigningen av fredsmonumentet 1914, 3.
30 Nya Vägar 1/1922; Fredsfanan, 3/1913; Nilsson 1934, 57–8.
31 Fredsfanan, 3–4/1911, 5/1911 & 7–8/1911; Fredsbanneret, 7–8/1912 & 12/1912; Invigningen av fredsmonumentet 1914, 10–11;Ringsby 2011, 176–80.
32 Fredsfanan, 12/1912; Invigningen av fredsmonumentet 1914, 12.
33 Sundblad 1919, 246.
34 Fredsfanan, 9/1913 & 10/1913; Fredsbanneret, 10/1913; Fredsbladet, 1/1914; Johan Lindström Saxon, En tidningsmans minnen (Stockholm: Nutiden, 1918), 265. Lars Johan Lehming (1871–1940) worked as an architect in Stockholm, and was committed to the peace cause—he did not charge anything for his work designing the peace monument.
35 Carl Sundblad, Minnesskrift med anledning av 110-årig fred i Norden samt fredsmonumentets tioårsjubileum (Stockholm: Wilhelmsson, 1924), 22; Carl Sundblad, Fredsmonumentets Historia (Stockholm: Wilhelmsson, 1929), 23–4; Fredsfanan, 10/1914; Fredsbanneret, 8/1914. The cost of the peace monument came to less than 27,000 kroner, including the purchase of the site.
36 Magnus Rodell, ‘Monumentet på gränsen’, Scandia, 74/2 (Lund, 2008), 37–8; Ringsby 2011, 180–7; Sundblad 1919, 277; Freden, 13/1964.
37 Bernhard Hanssen (1864–1939) founded the Norwegian Peace Society in 1895. From the outset he served both as the society’s chairman (for fourteen of its first twenty-seven years) and as editor of Det Norske Fredsblad. Hanssen also served several terms as an MP between 1900 and 1921, initially for Venstre, and later for Frisinnede Venstre
38 Carl Sundblad (1849–1933) worked as a teacher all his life. He served more or less continuously in the leadership of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society until 1925. Knut Sandstedt (1858–1944) served continuously in the leadership of the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society from 1897 to 1930, primarily as the society’s secretary and treasurer. Both men were deeply religious, but not politically active.
39 Stråth 2005, 91–95.
40 Fredsfanans ekstranummer 8½/1914; Sundblad 1919, 258–9.
41 The French caption reads ‘In memory of the dedication of the peace monument on the border between Norway and Sweden, 16 August 1914’. See Invigningen av fredsmonumentet 1914; Nilsson 1934, 62; and Irene Andersson, ‘Att gestalta fred. Fredsrepresentationer mellan 1885 och 1945 i ett genusperspektiv’, in Lars M Andersson, Lars Berggren & Ulf Zander (eds.), Mer än tusen ord. Bilden och de historiska vetenskaperna (Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 2001), 163–4.
42 Fredsfanan, 10/1913; Fredsbladet, 1/1914; Fredsbanneret, 10/1913 & 8/1914; Freden, 13/1964; Saxon 1918, 265; Sundblad 1924, 27–30. Fasces, the Latin for bundle or stack (sädeskärven in Swedish), were a mark of power in ancient Rome. Fasces were originally a bundle of beech or elm sticks, tied together with a red band, with an axe bound in among the sticks. An axe was not used in the case of the peace monument.
43 Fredsfanan, 9/1914; Fredsbladet, 9/1914; Fredsbanneret, 8/1914.
44 Invigningen av fredsmonumentet 1914.
45 Fredsbanneret, 8/1914.
46 Fredsfanan, 10/1914.
47 Fredsbanneret, 8/1914.
48 Fredsbladet, 10/1914.
49 Rodell 2008, 37–8; Ringsby 2011, 184–7.
50 Fredsfanan, 9/1914; see also Fredsbladet, 9/1914; Fredsbanneret, 8/1914; Sundblad 1924, 17; Sundblad 1929, 19.
51 Rodell 2008, 39–40.
52 Tyrihans 34/1914. ‘Ja, vi elsker dette landet’ [‘Yes, we love this country’] is the Norwegian national anthem, with words by Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1832–1910) and music by Rikard Nordraak (1842–1866). ‘Du gamla, du fria’ [‘Thou ancient, Thou free’] is the Swedish national anthem, with words by Richard Dybeck (1811–1877) to a traditional melody.
53 See Tønnes Bekker-Nielsen, ‘Mellem antidyrkelse og nationalromantik’, Den jyske Historiker, 29–30 (Aarhus, 1984), 13–32; Mari Seilskjær, ‘Identitet og erindringspolitikk – en analyse av Fridtjof den frøkne som historisk monument’, Fortid, 3 (Oslo, 2006), 63–8; Ulf Zander, ‘Läroböcker i sten’, in Klas-Göran Karlsson & Ulf Zander (eds.), Historien är nu. En introduktion till historiedidaktiken (Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2004), 103–123 for a general introduction to the use of monuments as historical sources.
54 Fredsfanan, 2/1913; Fredsbanneret, 9/1915. There are no indications that the temperance movement, the youth movement, or other societies started using this location regularly.
55 Fredsfanan, 9/1915, 9/1916 & 9/1919; Fredsbanneret, 8/1916; Folkefred, 9/1919.
56 Freden, 14/1933, 15/1933, 8/1939, 11–12/1939, 15–16/1939 & 15– 16/1940; Verden Venter, 7/1934, 4/1939, 6/1939 & 7/1939, Arbeiderbladet, 14 August 1939.
57 Verden Venter, 7/1939.
58 Verden Venter, 1–2/1945; Freden, 17–18/1940, 8/1944, 5/1945, 7/1945 & 8/1945.
59 Freden, 13/1964; Över alla gränser. Fredsmonumentet i radioriket Morokulien vid svensk-norska gränsen, Eda–Magnor (Stockholm: Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen, [n.d.]); Fredsmonumentet. En milstolpe i historien (Stochholm: Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen, [n.d.]); <http://www.fredsmonumentet.com/>, accessed 24 September 2012.
60 Nigel Young, ‘Why do Peace Movements Fail? An Historical and Sociological Overview’, PRIO Working Paper, 10 (Oslo, 1983), 10.
61 Ringsby 2011, 76–106.
62 Fredsbladet, 9/1915.
63 Folkefred, January 1918. See also Folkefred, August & November 1917; Fredsbladet, 9/1917; Fredsfanan, 46/1917.
64 Karen Gram-Skjoldager, Fred og folkeret. Internationalismens status og rolle i dansk udenrikspolitik 1899–1939 (diss.; Aarhus: Aarhus Universitet, 2008), 119–148; Ringsby 2011, 273–97 & 313–15.
65 Folkefred, 12/1917 & 11/1918; Knut Sandstedt, Nordisk fredskalender 1919–1920 (Stockholm: Svenska freds- och skiljedomsföreningen, 1920), 87–90; Ringsby 2011, 208–210 & 233–6.
66 Hemstad 2008, 264–75 & 502–503.
67 Svein Olav Hansen, ‘Foreningene Norden 1919–94 – ambisjoner og virkelighet’, Den jyske Historiker, 69–70 (Aarhus, 1994), 114–15; Roald Berg, ‘Nordisk samarbeid 1914–1918’, IFS Info, 4 (Oslo: Institutt for forsvarsstudier, 1997), 8; Karen Gram-Skjoldager & Øyvind Tønnesson, ‘Unity and Divergence: Scandinavian Internationalism 1914–1921’, Contemporary European History, 17/3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 307–310.
68 Hemstad 2008, 536–56; Hansen 1994.
69 Ringsby 2011, 165–7 & 298–304.
70 Gram-Skjoldager 2008, 156–70; Gram-Skjoldager & Tønnesson 2008, 319–20; Fogelström, 1971, 169; Odd-Bjørn Fure, ‘Mellomkrigstid 1920–1940’, Norsk utenrikspolitikks historie (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1996), iii. 183–184; Nils Yngvar Bøe Lindgren, Norge og opprettelsen av Folkeforbundet (MA diss.; Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo, 1993), 175–98; Erik Lönnroth, Den svenska utrikespolitikens historia 1919–1939 (Stockholm: Nordstedt, 1959), v. 30–54. Sixteen of the Norwegians who voted against belonged to Arbeiderpartiet, while the opponents in Sweden belonged to the far Right and the far Left alike.
71 Eight Nordic peace meetings were held in the interwar years: Stockholm (1919), Copenhagen (1922), Oslo (1925), Stockholm (1928), Copenhagen (1931), Oslo (1934), Helsingfors (1937), and Arvika (1939). This arrangement was more or less discontinued after the Second World War.