THE LOSS OF BUILT HERITAGE IN NORTHERN NORWAY DURING WWII AND THE FAILING INTEREST TO RESTORE IT IN THE OFFICIAL POST-WAR REBUILDING POLICY

Abstract. It Тs КrРuОН tСКt tСО pШХТМв ШП “NШrаОРТКЧТsКtТШЧ”, Т.О. tСО ТЦpХТМТt Лut well-documented Norwegian state programme of the first half of the 20th century of active national homogenisation was continued in the top-down management and execution of the so-called reconstruction of the housing and infrastructure of northeastern Norway after WWII. Its technocratic standardisation largely explains the lack of identity and tourism appeal that today characterise the villages and towns of Finnmark County and the eastern part of Troms County.

Key words: Finnmark and Troms Counties, active national homogenization, Russia, Norway.

Introduction

In October 1944 the Soviet Red Army successfully drove Nazi German troops from their entrenched positions around the river Litza in the north-west of the Kola Peninsula and further into Norwegian territory where the border-town of Kirkenes, which since 1940 had been turned into a large German basecamp and stronghold, was liberated on the 25th of October. The retreating Nazi German troops were pursued as far as to the villages of Neiden and Tana some 140 km further west in Norway whereupon the Red Army halted and went into camp for the winter. After the peace, in September 1945, the remaining Red Army units in northern Norway were ordered back to Russia. From October 1944 until the final surrender in May 1945, during their unforced retreat west, the Nazi German Army had ample time to apply the scorched earth policy on all territory between Tana and the Lyngen fjord-region in Troms County where it went into camp. It evacuated the populations of Finnmark and eastern Troms, and to near completeness destroyed buildings, farmsteads, the small industrial plants of these sparsely populated coastal regions, all fishing vessels and infrastructure including roads, bridges and telephone lines; even large masonry and concrete structures such as those of harbours and their quays were systematically blasted and levelled to the ground1.

1DТНОrТМС H. LЮЧН, “TСО RОЯТЯКХ ШП NШrЭСОrЧ NШrаКв”, The Geographical Journal vol. 109 (1947) no. 4/6, pp. 185–197; J.D.M. BХвЭС, “TСО АКr ТЧ ArМЭТМ EЮrШЩО, 1941–45”, Polar Record vol. 7 (1955) no. 49, pp. 278–301; Vincent Hunt, FТrО КЧН IМО: TСО NКгТs’ SМШrМСОН

Earth Campaign in Norway (Stroud, 2014).

278

Among the oft stated overarching goals of municipal and regional planning in the high north today is the general task to provide an attractive lifeenvironment to both its local citizens and short-term visitors. In line with contemporary principles of cultural heritage management and tourism development the urban planning of the subarctic towns and villages might be expected to:

–affirm the identity of all northern residents – attract tourists;

–stabilise real-estate prices;

–counteract the labour supply regime of fly-in-fly-out of locally needed

professionals;

– ЩrШЦШЭО ОЯОrвШЧО’Ь ХТПО qЮКХТЭв.

How is this affected by the state of maintenance of private real-estate and public buildings, by the existence of monuments, public art and the presentation of local historic sites? How well-considered are development plans and to what extent are they fulfilled in public work and major private investments? A lack of public debate, contextual historical analysis and not least comparative research on the way cultural values are and have been managed, articulated or suppressed in the Euroarctic townscapes and rural settings like those of Finnmark County are hampering innovation in tourism and proactive work on improving the standing of the northern region in all the five mentioned regards.

The Values of Cultural Heritage

This article examines the complexity of meanings and the political hegemony manifest in built heritage and in the acts of renovation, preservation, or of discard of traditions and identities that have been directed at it and which have determined whether and which older built structures have survived, what shape they are in presently and how this mirrors and in turn amplifies their commercial values as real estate, as tourism attractions and the cultural values they represent to different contemporary stakeholders1. In the case of the rebuilding of post-war northernmost Norway attention is drawn to the political act of denial of cultural value, not by the destruction of the war per se (which was brought about mainly by the standard warfare of the scorched earth) not either by the Nazi fascist ideology as it happened to be favourable to so-called Aryan traditional Norwegian culture, while the racist ideology it applied in lands it occupied elsewhere in Europe inflicted horrendous systematic destruction on whole peoples and their cultural heritage2; instead it was the selective suppression of the multicultural character of northern-most Norway in the policy of the re-

1Derek Gillman, The Idea of Cultural Heritage (Cambridge, 2010); Bob McKercher & Hilary Du Cros, Cultural Tourism: The Partnership Between Tourism and Cultural Heritage

Management (New York, London & Oxford, 2002); D.J. Timothy & S.W. Boyd, Heritage and Tourism (Harlow, 2003).

2TОЬЬК DЮЧЬОКЭС, “TОКМСОrЬ КЭ АКr: NШrаОРТКЧ TОКМСОrЬ НЮrТЧР ЭСО GОrЦКЧ OММЮЩКЭТШЧ ШП

Norway 1940–45”, History of Education vol. 31 (2002) no. 4, pp. 371–383; Yehuda Bauer,

A History of the Holocaust (Danbury, 2001).

279

building of it after the war that made this cultural erasure and homogenisation permanent in the built heritage. The latter had of course no resemblance with the war-crimes committed by the Nazis but nevertheless it should be recognised as part of the explanation to the challenges today to develop tourism and manage cultural heritage in subarctic Norway in the face of an absence of local tradition and character in the post-war architecture and townscapes of the region.

The post-war rebuilding of the housing, industry, communication networks, harbours and infrastructure of north-eastern Norway has often been simplistically regarded as a given practical matter somehow only determined by the scarcity of material and human resources in the aftermath of the war, sometimes adding heroic reference to the leadership of the re-building by southern architects and city-planners. But the post-war re-building of the Norwegian north needs to be understood as determined in its timings, priorities and in most details

by the larger geopolitical tension of the early Cold War period, and by a continuing domestic concerЧ Лв NШrаКв’Ь МОЧЭrКХ РШЯОrЧЦОЧЭЬ ШЯОr ЭСОТr ЧШrЭС-

easternmost County of Finnmark which had for long been seen as a troublesome borderland due to its ethnically and language-wise mixed population, its age-old informal cross-border trade and cultural ties with northern Finland and north-

west Russia, its deviant religious minorities, destabilising labour unions and leftish political movements1. IЭ ТЬ ПЮrЭСОr КrРЮОН ЭСКЭ ЭСО ЩШХТМв ШП “NШrаОРТКЧТЬa-

ЭТШЧ”, Т.О. ЭСО ТЦЩХТМТЭ ЛЮЭ аОХХ-documented Norwegian state programme of the first half of the 20th century of active national homogenisation, with the south of Norway as norm for everything Norwegian2, was a driving force still in the socalled reconstruction of the infrastructure and society up-north after WWII and which today largely explains the technocratic anonymity of its housing and townscapes. The general application of systematic rejection of local identity and cultural heritage has resulted in monotony and lack of aesthetic value of the designs of the 1950s (evident to any observer apart from professional modernism enthusiasts) which still dominate the villages in the north and today discourages investments in real-estate maintenance and thus further aggravate the lack of tourism appeal of its housing and built environment.

The on-set of the Cold War during the 1950s, and the iron-curtain closure of the border between NATO member-state Norway and the Soviet Union, re-

1 Knut E. Eriksen & Einar Niemi, Den finske fare: Sikkerhetsproblemer og minoritetspolitikk i nord 1860–1940 (OЬХШ, BОrРОЧ & TrШЦЬø, 1981); KУОХХ OХЬОЧ, “EЭСЧТМТЭв КЧН RОЩrОЬОЧЭa- tion in a ‘LШМКХ’ MЮЬОЮЦ”, ТЧ: P. AЧЭЭШЧОЧ (ОН.), Folklore, Heritage Politics and Ethnic Di-

versity: A Festschrift for Barbro Klein (Tumba, 2000), pp. 140–157; Hallvard Tjelmeland, “BШrНОr КЬ BКrrТОr КЧН BrТНРО: TСО NШrаОРТКЧ-Soviet/Russian Border as a Political and

Cultural CШЧЬЭrЮМЭТШЧ”, in: K. Katajala & M. Lähteenmäki (eds.), Imagined, Negotiated, Re-

membered: Constructing European Borders and Borderlands (Münster, 2012), pp. 167–186.

2 HОЧrв MТЧНО, “AЬЬТЦТХКЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО SКЦТ – IЦЩХОЦОЧЭКЭТШЧ КЧН CШЧЬОqЮОЧМОЬ”, Gáldu

ČпХК – Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights (2005) no. 3, pp. 1–32; LОЧК AКrОФШХ, “KЯОЧ

CЮХЭЮrО КЧН HТЬЭШrв ТЧ MЮЬОЮЦ TОrЦЬ”, ТЧ: K. GШШНЧШа & H. AФЦКЧ (ОНЬ.), Scandinavian Museums and Cultural Diversity UNESCO (New York and Oxford, 2008) pp. 149–180.

280

intensified the Norwegian state policy to supress the east-west regional cultural heritage of Finnmark County with its Sami, Finnish and Russian character and its cross-border people-to-people bonds. Thus the rebuilding of western Troms and Finnmark Counties was made according to blue-prints developed by authorised architects of the south actively suppressing any signs of local traditions and cross-border exchange prevalent in the built heritage of the pre-war towns and villages of north-eastern Norway.

Five assertions on the post-war rebuilding of Finnmark and Troms Coun-

ties.

The WWII devastation of Finnmark County west of Kirkenes and Tana, and the north-eastern part of Troms County was severe also compared to major theatres of the war.

New housing was supported by a special tax collected in all of Norway. Prefabricated houses were ordered at firms in southern and middle Norway. The local building process was managed/controlled top-down by the state based on a temporary regional organisation. Norwegian architects at the time seem to have regarded participation in this work as less prestigious1.

Contrary to policy branding during the actual process and several later characterisations of it there was no post-war reconstruction of northern Norway based on its pre-war heritage: Finnmark and eastern Troms Counties were built anew, without any consideration of their multifaceted history and indigenous culture. During the Sami revival and affirmative movement of the 1970–80s, which was supported by academic, political and environmental groups of the majority society, the homogenisation politics of Norwegianisation was criticised also with regard to cultural heritage management and in the biased historical presentations of e.g. the Museum of Reconstruction for Finnmark and Northern Troms Counties in Hammerfest2. It is argued here that this analysis should be extended and acknowledged as relevant for the whole process of rebuilding northern Norway and also used to explain the fact that unlike many other regions of intense material destruction of war no later movements and policies have been articulated to restore significant portions of the built heritage of pre-

1 TСТЬ ТЬ ЭСО ЩrОЬОЧЭЬ КЮЭСШr’Ь ОЯКХЮКЭТШЧ ЛКЬОН ШЧ ХТЯТЧР ТЧ KТrФОЧes for several years, observations of contemporary city planning, the dearth of investments in real estate in eastern

Finnmark and a near complete re-interpretation of the conclusions made in Ingebjørg Hage,

“RОМШЧЬЭrЮМЭТШЧ ШП NШrЭС NШrаКв КПЭОr ЭСО SОМШЧН World War – New Opportunities for

FОЦКХО ArМСТЭОМЭЬ?”, Acta Borealia vol. 22 (2005) no. 2, pp. 99–127.

2 AЧНОrЬ B. AЬЩСКЮР, “TТЧРОЧОЬ ЛОЭвНЧТЧР”, ТЧ: H. JШСКЧЬОЧ, H. SЭОЧЯШХН & A. DКХОЧ

Ringheim (eds.), Finnmarksmuseene forteller – fra andehodeamuletter til kongekrabber

(Alta, 2006), pp. 121–128; LТЧО EЬЛШrР, “(RО)МШЧЬЭrЮМЭОН CЮХЭЮrКХ HОrТЭКРО”, Acta Borealia vol. 29 (2012) no. 1, pp. 77–97; HКХХЯКrН TУОХЦОХКЧН, “DОЭ ЬОТЧЦШНОrЧО NШrН-Norge –

ХТФОrОЭЭТЧР ОХХОr rОРТШЧКХТЬОrТЧР?”, in: E.O. Eriksen (ed.), Det nye Nord-Norge: Avhengighet og modernisering i nord, (Bergen, 1996), pp. 71–108.

281

war Finnmark and north-eastern Troms including any of their historic landmark buildings1.

The pre-war distinctiveness and tourism appeal of the various northern settlements and the building traditions of north-eastern Norway were dismissed and not considered as models in the architectural designs of their post-war reestablishment.

Finnmark County faced the same infrastructural challenges after the war as it did before it. Roads had actually been improved by the forced labour of many mainly Russian prisoners of war who also built the first airfields in northern Norway which became of use much later. The new harbours and the technologically advanced new fishing fleet and sea-food processing industry gained competitive advantages by the major investments made in replacing the earlier structures and vessels. Railway construction still remains absent and industrially important power grids, such as that supplying electric energy to the iron mine of Kirkenes, which was rebuilt based on US Marshal funding, were only regional until the 1960s and have remained undersized, albeit today strengthened by cross-border connection to Russia2.

Literature

1.AКrОФШХ, LОЧК, “KЯОЧ CЮХЭЮrО КЧН HТЬЭШrв ТЧ MЮЬОЮЦ TОrЦЬ”, ТЧ: K. GШШНЧow & H. Akman (eds.), Scandinavian Museums and Cultural Diversity UNESCO (New

York & Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2008) pp. 149–180, available at Munin Open Research Archive [Web] http://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/4199

2.AЬЩСКЮР, AЧНОrЬ B., “TТЧРОЧОЬ ЛОЭвНЧТЧР”, in: H. Johansen, H. Stenvold & A. Da-

ХОЧ RТЧРСОТЦ (ОНЬ.), FТЧЧЦКrФЬЦЮЬООЧО ПШrЭОХХОr − ПrК КЧНОСШНОКЦЮХОЭЭОr ЭТХ kongekrabber [Text] (Alta: Finnmark museumssråd, 2006), pp. 121–128.

3.Bauer, Yehuda, A History of the Holocaust, rev. ed. [Text] (Danbury, Connecticut: Franklin Watts, 2001).

4.BХвЭС, J.D.M., “TСО АКr ТЧ ArМЭТМ EЮrШЩО, 1941-45”, ДTОбЭЖ PШХКr RОМШrН ЯШХ. 7

(1955) no. 49, pp. 278–301.

5.Clapson, Mark & Peter J. Larkham (eds.), The Blitz and Its Legacy: Wartime Destruction to Post-war Reconstruction [Text] (Farham: Ashgate, 2013).

6.DТОПОЧНШrП, JОППrв M. (ОН.), RОЛЮТХНТЧР EЮrШЩО’Ь BШЦЛОН CТЭТОЬ ДTОбЭЖ (LШЧНШЧ:

Macmillan, 1990).

1For comparative perspectives on the issues at stake here and their importance in many European settings and, of course, globally see e.g. J.M. Diefendorf (ed.), Rebuilding EurШpО’s Bombed Cities (London: Macmillan, 1990); M. Clapson & P.J. Larkham (eds.), The Blitz

and Its Legacy: Wartime Destruction to Post-war Reconstruction (Farham: Ashgate, 2013);

HТЬСКЦ EХФКНТ, “АСШЬО IНОЧЭТЭв? VКХЮТЧР ЭСО CЮХЭЮrО BЮТХЭ HОrТЭКРО ТЧ DТЯerse and Ten-

ЬТШЧОН SШМТОЭТОЬ”, A|Z Istanbul Technical University Journal of the Faculty of Architecture vol. 4 (2007) no. 1, pp. 45–55.

2On the post-war restructuring of the Sydvaranger iron mine at Kirkenes and its power sup-

ЩХв ЬОО TrОЯШr LХШвН, “IrШЧ OrО PrШНЮМЭТШЧ КЭ KТrФОЧОЬ, NШrаКв”, Economic Geography vol. 31 (1955) no. 3, pp. 211–233.

282

7.DЮЧЬОКЭС, TОЬЬК, “TОКМСОrЬ КЭ АКr: NШrаОРТКЧ TОКМСОrЬ НЮrТЧР ЭСО GОrЦКЧ Oc- cupation of Norway 1940–45”, ДTОбЭЖ HТЬЭШrв ШП EНЮМКЭТШЧ Яol. 31 (2002) no. 4, pp. 371–383.

8.EХФКНТ, HТЬСКЦ, “АСШЬО IНОЧЭТЭв? VКХЮТЧР ЭСО CЮХЭЮrО BЮТХЭ HОrТЭКРО ТЧ DТЯОrЬО КЧН TОЧЬТШЧОН SШМТОЭТОЬ”, AеГ IЬЭКЧЛЮХ TОМСЧТМКХ UЧТЯОrЬТЭв JШЮrЧКХ ШП ЭСО FКМЮХЭв of Architecture [Text]. vol. 4 (2007) no. 1, pp. 45–55.

9.Eriksen, Knut E. & Einar Niemi, Den finske fare: Sikkerhetsproblemer og minoritetspolitikk i nord 1860–1940 [Text] (Oslo, Bergen & Tromsø: Universitetsforlaget, 1981).

10.EЬЛШrР, LТЧО, “(RО)МШЧЬЭrЮМЭОН CЮХЭЮrКХ HОrТЭКРО”, ДTОбЭЖ AМЭК BШrОКХТК ЯШХ. 29

(2012) no. 1, pp. 77–97.

11.Gillman, Derek, The Idea of Cultural Heritage, [Text] 2nd. rev. ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

12.HКРО, IЧРОЛУørР, “RОМШЧЬЭrЮМЭТШЧ ШП NШrЭС NШrаКв КПЭОr ЭСО SОМШЧН АШrХН АКr − NОа OЩЩШrЭЮЧТЭТОЬ ПШr FОЦКХО ArМСТЭОМЭЬ?”, ДTОxt] Acta Borealia vol. 22 (2005) no. 2, pp. 99–127.

13.HЮЧЭ, VТЧМОЧЭ, FТrО КЧН IМО: TСО NКгТЬ’ SМШrМСОН EКrЭС CКЦЩКТРЧ ТЧ NШrаКв

[Text] (Stroud: Spellmount, 2014).

14.LХШвН, TrОЯШr, “IrШЧ OrО PrШНЮМЭТШЧ КЭ KТrФОЧОЬ, NШrаКв”, ДTОбЭЖ EМШЧШЦТМ Ge- ography vol. 31 (1955) no. 3, pp. 211–233.

15.LЮЧН, DТНОrТМС H., “TСО RОЯТЯКХ ШП NШrЭСОrЧ NШrаКв”, ДTОбЭЖ TСО GОШРrКЩСТМКХ

Journal vol. 109 (1947) no. 4/6, pp. 185–197.

16.McKercher, Bob & Hilary Du Cros, Cultural Tourism: The Partnership between Tourism and Cultural Heritage Management [Text] (New York, London & Oxford: The Haworth Hospitality Press, 2002)

17.MТЧНО, HОЧrв, “AЬЬТЦТХКЭТШЧ ШП ЭСО SКЦТ – IЦЩХОЦОЧЭКЭТШЧ КЧН CШЧЬОqЮОЧМОЬ”, GпХНЮ ČпХ − JШЮrЧКХ ШП IЧНТРОЧШЮЬ PОШЩХОЬ RТРСЭЬ ДTОбЭЖ (2005) ЧШ. 3, ЩЩ. 1–32

18.OХЬОЧ, KУОХХ, “EЭСЧТМТty and Representation in a ‘Local’ MЮЬОЮЦ”, ТЧ: P. AЧЭЭШЧОЧ

(ed.), Folklore, Heritage Politics and Ethnic Diversity: A Festschrift for Barbro Klein [Text] (Tumba: Multicultural Centre, 2000), pp. 140–157.

19.Timothy, Dallen J. & Stephen W. Boyd, Heritage and Tourism [Text] (Harlow: Pearson Education, 2003).

20.TУОХЦОХКЧН, HКХХЯКrН, “BШrНОr КЬ BКrrТОr КЧН BrТНРО: TСО NШrаОРТКЧ-Soviet/Rus-

ЬТКЧ BШrНОr КЬ К PШХТЭТМКХ КЧН CЮХЭЮrКХ CШЧЬЭrЮМЭТШЧ”, ТЧ: KТЦЦШ KКЭКУКХК & MКrТК

Lähteenmäki (eds.), [Text] Imagined, Negotiated, Remembered: Constructing European Borders and Borderlands (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2012), pp. 167–186.

21.TУОХЦОХКЧН, HКХХЯКrН, “DОЭ ЬОТЧЦШНОrЧО NШrН-Norge – likeretting eller regionalis- ОrТЧР?”, in: E.O. Eriksen (ed.), Det nye Nord-Norge: Avhengighet og modernisering i nord [Text] (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 1996), pp. 71–108.

283

285

286

Vladislava Vladimirova – PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden;

Peter Haugseth – Cand.polit, assistant professor, UiT-The Arctic University of Norway, Campus Kirkenes, Kirkenes kompetansesenter Pasvik v. 2. 9915, Kirkenes;

287

Urban Wråkberg – Dr, associate professor of department of Tourism Research and Northern Studies, UiT The Arctic University of Norway Campus Kirkenes, Kirkenes

288

.

289