On Vidkun Quisling in Bulgarian press during WW2

From May 1933 Vidkun Quisling was the leader of Nasjonal Samling the patriotic party in Norway.   Quisling was known for his engagement in Ukraine and Belarus during the 20’s, where he worked with Fridtjof Nansen representing the League of Nations during the famine after the Communists had stolen the crops from the farmers and sold it to pay back the loan US-Jews had given to finance the Communist Revolution of 1917.

This is the translation of the Bulgarian article.

Vidkun Quisling

By Kurt Reich

As early as the summertime of 1940, the English made plural form out of the name of Quisling. They multiplied His name by a factor of "X", where "X" was the number of those European countries, which were not willing to sacrifice their existence and the blood of their sons because of the British war against Europe. According the(ir) British opinion, each of those countries had his own Quisling. When during the November last year Berlin Congress took place, Churchill’s agitators used to say: "The Quisling’s are meeting each other in Berlin". The English used the name of Quisling in any occasion in regard to the new European community.

Since 1ST of February the prime-minister of Norway is Vidkun Quisling, whose international reputation the English have taken pains almost two years. They however, did not do it because of good intentions; they relied on the lack of discrimination of those they wanted to have influence upon with their propaganda. Why it was so? What wrong did Quisling do them? When on April 9TH 1940, the German Army within several hours got ahead of the British invasion in His Fatherland, He realized that an war against Germany is senseless and would devour unnecessary Norwegian blood, He attempted to form a national government and thus to restore the neutrality of Norway. Therefore, He acted as a Norwegian patriot, He who, while the old party politicians had run to the ground, was determined to represent the interests of His people, but who, perfectly logically, did not wish any more to be connected with England. The English, because of lack of other possibilities to exercise influence, concentrated their malice onto His name and attempted to incite world public disgust against Him.

In London, they have not always shouted at Quisling. England would have had reason to be grateful to Him because of various earlier favours. In the bolshevik chaos of the 1920’s, He did something to save the British values. During 1927, when England and Soviet Russia broke off their relations temporarily, He was appointed as a secretary of the Norwegian Legation in Moscow and He was also charged with a task to defend British interests in the Soviet state. In His concept of foreign policy, as He explained it in 1930 in His book "We and Russia", is the idea of a "north-European principle" which one is seen by Him as endangered by the Bolshevism, and which salvation He expected from the cooperation of the Northern Nations together with Germany, Holland and England. This corresponded exactly to the thoughts of Adolf Hitler, who did His best to come to an understanding with England and to enlist Her for a cause of conscious and responsible policy. Only in London they completely lack any reason about this, deluded by their boundless madness for power.

Therefore, Quisling was not in the first place against England. On the contrary, He wanted, like Germany, to cooperate with the English, without of-course to be obedient. For Him the vital necessities of His people and the fate of the "north-European principle" were more important than the attitude toward England. When He saw the England to push His Fatherland toward disaster and to betray Europe, He by necessity came to a conclusion that Chamberlain and Churchill had destroyed the foundations of the so desired cooperation. The English, which accepted a few Norwegian emigrants with high honours, found it very blamable that Quisling took the side of His Nation, instead to abandon it in the middle of the road.

The English may have lots of objections against Quisling, but they cannot dispute that He withstood His national-political policy and during the fatal hour He remained with His people.

 

Return to Top pf Other Interesting Things