Talk:Christian X of Denmark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Portal	Christian X of Denmark falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

what Christian x, King of Denmark do to become such a brave leader?

Contents 1 Rewrite project. 2 Sources 3 Iceland 4 military history?

[edit] Rewrite project.

There are apparently some mistakes in my summary of the Easter Crisis of 1920, particularly relating to the disposition of Zahle's government at the end of the crisis. I'm trying to find a source that clearly explains the process at this time. User:Tomlillis 14th October

If you read Danish, the best book is probably Tage Kaarsted's "Påskekrisen 1920". --Valentinian 16:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Is there a source for the assertion that the star of David story is apocryphal? Durova 18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, that the Star of David was never introduced in Denmark. Two, no Danish history books takes this story serious. The Danish Jews were arrested by the Nazis following the collapse of the coorporation between the German and Danish governments. Danish governments had - until then - succesfully avoided the introduction of the Yellow Star. When the government resigned and the Germans reigned supreme, they simply went straight to the arrestment phase. Regards. --Valentinian 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This page contains more information: http://www.snopes.com/history/govern/denmark.htm Valentinian ^(talk) 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I found nothing on that page now. But I too am curious on this note- the way I've heard the story is the star of David wasn't used in Denmark because of the King's actions in refusing to wear the star, followed by copycats in the populace. This would not disagree with the main article, which states that the star was not used in Denmark, but then uses it as a justification for the story being apocryphal.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul Muhib (talk • contribs)

If I am allowed to quote snopes.com, from the link above, here is probably the origin for the myth:

"A Swedish newspaper cartoon (possibly the origin of this legend) depicted the monarch talking with the former Danish prime minster, who asks him, "What are we going to do, Your Majesty, if Scavenius makes all the Jews wear yellow stars?" (Erik Scavenius was the Danish foreign minister who became prime minister at the insistence of the Germans after the Danish government resigned in 1943.) The king responds by asserting, "We'll all have to wear yellow stars.""

If I'm not allowed to quote snopes.com, I guess I'm in trouble!FlaviaR 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent). Drat, somebody must have shut it down. You might be interested in the article about the German Occupation of Denmark. The reason the Danish Jews were never forced to wear the Yellow Star was that the Danish government was officially allowed to stay in office by the Germans and that the introduction of the star was one of several issues the Danish cabinet refused seing them as a "red line". The most prominent other red lines were rejecting the introduction of the death penalty and refusing German military courts to sentence Danes, which the Germans demanded in case of saboteurs. The first source I can think of is Lidegaard, Bo (2003), Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, IV, Copenhagen: Gyldendal, pp. 540-549 and 614-615. To quote a few passages: "The question about the status of the Danish Jews was raised by the Germans on numerous occations during the first years of the Occupation. The [Danish] government, however, categorically rejected any discussion citing that no "Jewish question" existed in Denmark. It was apparent for Berlin, that restraint on this issue was part of the price for a peaceful occupation [of Denmark] and the policy of cooperation. No Danish will to compromise existed here and the question was put aside as long as the Danish government carried out its obligations regarding the policy of cooperation." (p. 540, loose translation). "

and

"The casualty rates of the Danish Jews of no more than 100 out of 7,000 seems almost miraculous compared to the countries around us. Around 40 % Norway's 1,800 Jews perished, 75 % of Holland's, half of Hungary's. The rescue of the Danish Jews from the Holocaust has since then been seen as the Danes' finest hour (author's italics). It has been presented as the miraculous exception which seems so needed, in order to endure the thought about the Holocaust. The rescue has been seen as the result of a spontaneous humanitarian action from a population, which in disgust turned against the meaningless persecution of helpless fellow citizens, and whom - with heroic contempt for personal consequences - helped where it was most needed. (...) With time, this story has assumed mythical proportions including elements without any connection to the historical reality. One such is the well known story about King Christian X wearing his star of David on his morning rides in Copenhagen.[since the king didn't own such a star, the word "his" is inaccurate, but original in the text, V.]

(teeniest of little nitpicks: since the article was discussing mythical stories, the part about the star being the King's was therefore being referred to as mythical as well, so it was correct in the context of the article. FlaviaR 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

Another rumour claims that the king - questioned how he would reply should the hated star be introduced in Denmark - should have replied that in such case, he would have worn it as a badge of honour. (pages 545-546).

and

"The background for this sudden German interest in excluding the Danish Jews from the devellish ambitions of the Endlösung was consequently due to BOTH the fact, that Danish authorities and representatives at all levels [of government] from the very first hours of the Occupation consequently and without hesitation stated that the exclusion of the Jewish element of the population would make any further cooperation [with Germany] impossible AND the far-ranging Danish concessions given to the Germans on a number of other policy issues. In short, the entire system of the cooperation policy. The case of Denmark seems to suggest that, even within Nazi inner circles, and even in the last horrible year of both the war and genocide, an alternative political rationale could be established which also the Nazis took into some form of account." (p. 614) [The author alludes to the fact that the Danish Jews, when finally arrested, were generally not sent to the worst camps so many of those sent to camp also survived the war, V.] Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention it before; "Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie" means "The History of Danish Foreign Policy". It is a six volume work and the first attempt to write a complete chronological description of Danish foreign policy. It is commissioned by the publishers of the Great Danish Encyclopedia and it is considered to be a very solid piece of work. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article about the Yellow badge listed a few additional sources; [1] and a book about the Queen where HM describes this story as pretty but untrue. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iceland

Would it be worthwhile to add "King of Iceland" to the succession box? --Lemmy Kilmister--

Done. Valentinian ^(talk) 20:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Was King Christian X called King Christian I as the King of Iceland? -- Nidator 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that they call him Kristján X on the list of Icelandic rulers. I guess this means that the Danish numbering was used in Iceland too, but that the name was written in Icelandic. I'm asking because I think it would make sense to make an article on the Kingdom of Iceland. -- Nidator 16:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, it is the Danish numbering with his name written in Icelandic. During his reign, Iceland got its own separate coinage minted at the Royal Mint in Copenhagen, and these coins use Christian's CX cypher, see e.g. http://www.gladsaxegymnasium.dk/2/artikler/isl60nna.htm, so I believe this notation must have been official. The Icelandic Wikipedia's article is also is:Kristján 10.. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed from the succession box the statement that he was pretender to the Icelandic throne after 1944. If somebody can provide a published source which describes him in this fashion, then it should be re-instated. Noel S McFerran 12:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that both myself and Valentinian agree with you on that. -- Nidator 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] military history?

On what possible basis is Christian a figure in military history? This wikiproject has reached the level of complete insanity in articles included within its purview. john k 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

MILHIST is currently going through an assessment drive of articles that were flagged by a bot as potentially being relevant to the project. This involves sorting through the results and marking those that aren't relevant, while assessing those that are if they haven't been already. Christian X of Denmark was one of the results that was flagged, which is why I took a look at it to see if it did fall within the scope of the project. I decided to add him to MILHIST on the basis of his role as a war leader during the German occupation. Although largely symbolic, in consideration of Denmark being a constitutional monarchy, it was significant. I should note that several other leaders of countries that were involved in World War II have been included within the scope of the project. However I'm open to removing him from the scope of the project if there's a consensus for non-inclusion. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. I think I have at least three objections: 1) that Denmark's involvement in World War II was tangential at best, as there were no military campaigns involving the Danish army; 2) that Christian's status as an essentially powerless constitutional monarch makes his inclusion dubious - I note that a number of British monarchs, the earlier of which were actually reasonably involved in actual political control of wars, and are not in the project (Anne of Great Britain, George III of the United Kingdom, George IV of the United Kingdom, Victoria of the United Kingdom, George V of the United Kingdom, George VI of the United Kingdom) - the only exception in the last 300 years is George II, who actually led troops in battle at Dettingen (George I actually commanded troops in the War of the Grand Alliance and War of the Spanish Succession before inheriting Britain, and should probably be included, but is not at present).; and finally, and probably more controversially 3) that civilian political leaders who never actually commanded troops should not be included in the project. john k 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of this response is what I posted on yours -

1. Danish involvement was hardly tangential - it was profoundly affected by being one of the countries invaded and occupied by Germany in 1940 and later was used as a base for the invasion of Norway. We also have articles of reasonable length based on Denmark's situation like Occupation of Denmark and Danish resistance movement as well as more specific ones such as Deportation of the Danish police. Lack of effective Danish resistance at the start nor the speed at which the country was conquered do not relegate it to having a peripheral role during the war, albeit not an active one as some of the other occupied countries like say France or Poland.
2. Christina's role as head of state and what he did during the war was important to the Danes, even if largely symbolic. As for similar monarchs who aren't yet in the project - they can always be added.
3. I checked on other wartime leaders who are included within the project, e.g. FDR, Churchill, Mussolini, Vidkun Quisling, and Hirohito. Not one of these people actually commanded a force in the field during the war, yet are included within the project based on the roles they played. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright. After some discussion with other folks involved with the project and consideration, I'm removing the MILHIST banner (point #2). However my stance re. points #1 and 3 remains, but that is another subject. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps our view of the purview of the project is somewhat different. My general feeling is that having to do with a war should not be sufficient to get someone in a "military history" project. One should have to have something to do with the military aspects of the war. In terms of FDR, Churchill, Mussolini, Quisling, etc., I'd say that Churchill perhaps merits inclusion for his war reporting and service in WWI. Besides that, though, my general feeling is that while all these people (including Christian) ought to go in a "Wikiproject World War II", they do not belong in a "Wikiproject Military History". But to have this category include "everyone who's ever been a leader of a country which was at war" expands it to the point of meaninglessness. This isn't apparent yet because it's only been done for World War II, or for major countries. In terms of point 1, this probably doesn't matter at this point, but of course Denmark was deeply affected by its experience during the Second World War. On the flip side, though, Denmark did not seriously affect the course of World War II. At the formal level of international law, Denmark was arguably not even a belligerent. Which isn't to deny that there was a Danish resistance (I know little about it, but I would assume there was one), just that the Kingdom of Denmark, as a state, did not participate in the Second World War. This gets again to the issue of "military history". My general opinion is that "military history" doesn't mean "anything having to do with a war, no matter how distantly," but rather "history of military affairs". Abraham Lincoln and Edwin Stanton, though civilians, were arguably part of the military history of the American Civil War, because they were directing the Union's military efforts. I would suggest that Charles Francis Adams and Thaddeus Stevens, although important to an understanding of the Civil War, are not figures in military history, and so shouldn't be included. john k 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)