Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
How did the Norwegian newspapers
Aftenposten, Morgenbladet, Arbeiderbladet
and Friheten portray the espionage case of
Asbjørn Sunde in 1954?
History HL Extended Essay
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Word count: 3985
Ås vgs IB
Mai 2012
History HL
1
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
Abstract
The research question of this extended essay is: How did the Norwegian newspapers
Aftenposten, Morgenbladet, Arbeiderbladet and Friheten portray the espionage case of
Asbjørn Sunde in 1954?
To answer this question I have analyzed how four main Norwegian newspapers with
different editorial lines covered the case. The coverage has for practical reasons been
narrowed down to the assessments of the arrest of Asbjørn Sunde in February 1954, and the
verdict he received in July 1954. In addition, the books Raud krigar, raud spion and
Fiendebilde Wollweber have helped me to establish the historical context.
The conservative Aftenposten and the social democratic Arbeiderbladet proved to be
quite similar in their assessment of the case. Regardless of their editorial lines they both
portray the case as a catastrophe for Norway’s security by elaborating the consequences of the
espionage and blaming communism and the USSR.
The conservative Morgenbladet’s assessment was also characterized by strong anticommunism. It made the case seem like a sheer product of communism. However, the
newspaper did not come along with Arbeiderbladet and Aftenposten on every point. It
defended the judicial principle of open courts, whereas Arbeiderbladet and Aftenposten
believed this to be a necessary sacrifice for the security of the state. Therefore, Morgenbladet
cannot be categorized among them.
Communist Friheten was strictly subject to its editorial line. It portrayed the whole
case as a political smear-campaign intended to criminalize communism and encourage
increased preparedness.
Word count: 235
History HL
2
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
Table of contents
Title page
page 1
Abstract
page 2
Introduction
page 4
February 1954 – The arrest of Asbjørn Sunde
page 5
July 1954 – The verdict
page 8
Conclusion
page 10
Bibliography
page 12
History HL
3
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
Introduction
29th of January 1954 the Norwegian communist Asbjørn Sunde was arrested for giving
information concerning his country’s security to the Soviet Union. Many arrests of Sunde’s
presumed accomplices were to follow. It seemed that the police had uncovered the Norwegian
department of a much larger, communistic league.1
The media cover of these arrests was remarkable. People were served Cold War all
over Norway. According to the Norwegian journalist Egil Ulateig in his book Raud krigar,
raud spion2 the country was struck by a shock wave similar to the German invasion fourteen
years earlier3. This really shows the fear of Communism in the country at the time.
Looking at this case in its historical context, the period lasting from 1947 to 1957 is
today called the Second Red Scare4. Events such as the USSR getting the atomic bomb5 and
the Chinese Communists winning the Chinese Civil War6, strengthened the escalation of anticommunism in the West. This was accelerated by the initiatives of US Senator Joseph
McCarthy, the namesake of McCarthyism7. From 1951 it is said that the number of westerners
convicted for spying on the behalf of the Soviet Union, rose significantly8. This development
includes the controversial case of the Rosenberg couple9.
The Norwegian historian Lars Borgersrud argues in his book Fiendebilde Wollweber
that the government could achieve a domestic victory by exploiting the fear caused by
Asbjørn Sunde’s case. Furthermore he suggests that such a personification of communism
would dehumanize it and create a closer relation to the United States10.
Today it is argued among historians that Sunde’s verdict was strongly influenced by
the Cold War tension. In this sense, the factual conditions in the investigation of the case were
shadowed by the fear of Communism. Supporting this is the fact that his reputation has
improved significantly since 1990.11 Thus, the purpose of this extended essay is to analyze the
interpretations of the case by a selection of Norwegian newspapers.
The newspapers investigated are the conservative Aftenposten and Morgenbladet,
Arbeiderbladet, the official paper of the Social Democratic Party, Arbeidepartiet,12 and
Friheten, the official paper of the Communist Party, Norges kommunistiske parti.13 For
practical reasons I have narrowed the investigation down to an analysis of the coverage of two
main events in 1954; the arrest of Asbjørn Sunde and the verdict after his trial.
My research question is: How did the Norwegian newspapers Aftenposten,
Morgenbladet, Arbeiderbladet and Friheten portray the espionage case of Asbjørn Sunde in
1954?
1
Borgersrud, Lars, “Asbjørn Sunde”, Store norske leksikon, 16.5.11,
http://www.snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Asbjørn_Sunde/utdypning Store norske leksikon, date: 16.5.11
2
Ulateig, Egil, Raud krigar raud spion, Det norske samlaget 1989, Oslo, page 246
3
Lowe, Norman, Mastering Modern World History, Palgrave Macmillian 2005, New York, page 90
4
Rogers, Kelly and Thomas, Jo, History 20th Century World: The Cold War, Pearson Education Limited 2008,
UK, page 44-45.
5
Lowe, Norman, Mastering Modern World History, Palgrave Macmillian 2005, New York, page 122
6
Ibid page 134
7
Rogers, Kelly and Thomas, Jo, History 20th Century World: The Cold War, Pearson Education Limited 2008,
UK, page 44-45.
8
Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey, Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials That Shaped American
Politics, Cambridge University Press 2006, New York., page 251.
9
Ibid
10
Borgersrud, Lars, Fiendebilde Wollweber, Oktober 2001, Oslo, page 237
11
“Asbjørn Sunde”, Wikipedia. 17.9.11 http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbjørn_Sunde
12
In English: The Norwegian Labour Party. Had majority government in 1954.
13
In English: The Norwegian Communist Party.
History HL
4
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
February 1954 – The arrest of Asbjørn Sunde
On the 8th of February, Aftenposten heads that a large-scale espionage league has been
revealed in Oslo. The newspaper boldly assumes Asbjørn Sunde to be the leader, and that the
Soviet Union has been the supervisor.14 In the article “The new big espionage case”
Aftenposten comments on the behavior of the Soviet Union and claims that the country has
been increasing its espionage activity15. Furthermore, the newspaper writes extensively about
Sunde’s background, emphasizing his role as the leader of the communist sabotage
organization, the “Osvald group”16, during the German occupation. However, from 1936 and
onwards, Sunde was not a member of NKP. Aftenposten presumes that the Soviet Union
ordered him to resign to seem less suspicious and thus legitimate for espionage.17 By
portraying Sunde in such a way, he fits the accusations it has made. In addition, the
newspaper reveals that it has been familiar with this case for months, but has restrained from
publishing anything earlier due to a restriction from the Minister of Justice.18 This obviously
gives a reason to how it has been able to allocate and structure so much information so fast.
However, more interesting is that it reveals that the newspaper has a close relationship to the
government.
On the same day, Morgenbladet also presents this case on its first page with a similar
headline, saying; “Large-scale espionage revealed”, beneath is a picture of Asbjørn Sunde
with a comment on his involvement. There is no explicit claim of him being the leader.
Morgenbladet states, however, that this case is without comparison the largest one ever
revealed in Norway. It also finds it likely that the case has connections to a much broader
network of spying for a “foreign power”19. On the whole, this newspaper is more general and
its purpose seems to be to spread fear, rather than to attack Sunde’s credibility.
Arbeiderbladet heads on its front page February 8th that ten to twelve persons are
arrested for espionage for the Russians. The sub-headline says that the famous communist
Asbjørn Sunde has been the leader.20 Nevertheless, the newspaper reveals that the claim
regarding the Russian involvement is not based upon statements by the police, but on its own
reasoning. Furthermore, it writes about Sunde’s background and communist career. It stresses
that he was a volunteer in the Spanish Civil War, and founded the “Osvald-group” after
operation Barbarossa in June 194121. The newspaper emphasizes the significance of operation
Barbarossa as it implies that Sunde did not fight for the freedom of Norway, but to relieve the
USSR. Moreover, it assumes that Sunde has used his wartime connections and influence in
NKP to sustain his post-war spying activity.22 Summing up, we see that Arbeiderbladet’s
assessment is similar to that of Aftenposten. Sunde is portrayed as a fitting suspect, living up
to the accusations and implications the newspaper makes. Considering that Arbeiderbladet
was the official newspaper of the majority government of that time, it is reasonable to think
that its views reflect those of the government. Thus, one may ask whether Aftenposten’s and
Arbeiderbladet’s premature criticism might be influenced by the view of the government.
14
Aftenposten, 8.2.54 morning edition, “Omfattende spionasje for fremmed makt avsløret i Oslo”, page 1
Aftenposten, 8.2.54 morning edition, “Den nye store spionsak”, page 2
16
Norwegian communist sabotage organization from 1941 to 1944
17
Aftenposten, 8.2.54 morning edition, “Spionligaens fører: partisanen Osvald”, page 2
18
Ibid
19
Morgenbladet, 8.2.54, “Omfattende spionsak avslørt”, page 1.
20
Arbeiderbladet 8.2.54, “10-12 personer arrestert som spioner for russerne”, page 1
21
Arbeiderbladet 8.2.54, “Osvald har drevet mange ut i ulykken” page 2
22 Ibid
15
History HL
5
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
On February 8th Friheten modestly refers to a public statement by the police under a
small headline23. On February 9th, on the other hand, the newspaper takes a very different
stand than the other newspapers. It is in fact criticizing the way they have described the case
on February 8th. Friheten believes that this espionage case is becoming a smear-campaign
intended to criminalize Communism. It points out that its fellow newspapers have failed to
mention that Sunde in fact has not been a member of NKP since 1936. To conclude it says
that the party is against any form of espionage and knew nothing of Sunde’s business24. The
newspaper might have an appropriate and sober attitude towards the case. In this sense its
criticism is a response to the other papers’ premature hostility towards Communism.
However, the criticism might also just be an attempt to injure the credibility of its
counterparts, making it a part of an ideological struggle.
In Aftenposten’s morning and evening editions February 9th it is simply informing
about new arrests and the methods used in the investigation.25 However, on the 10th of
February the newspaper writes that Sunde had gained sabotage experience in the Spanish
Civil War. It argues that he is highly skilled when it comes to sabotage, conspiracy and
espionage. It also writes that he was a part of the communist organization, the Wollweber
League26, fighting fascism before the German occupation27. Furthermore, like Arbeiderbladet,
Aftenposten also claims that Sunde did not execute any plans of resistance against the
occupation before Operation Barbarossa. This shows that the newspaper is elaborating the
suspicious image it has created of Sunde. On February 11th it writes that it is a general rule in
any espionage case that the results of the investigation should not be published due to security
of the state.28 By making such a notion, Aftenposten seems care more for the security of the
state than it does for the democratic principle of openness. In an interview with police officer,
Welhaven, he states that; “The newspapers have been very imaginative, and should instead
wait for public statements when the time is right.”29 This implies that the police and
Aftenposten agree that the security of the state comes first and that democratic values come
second. Thus, Aftenposten strengthens its positions by supporting it with the authority of a
police statement.
On the 9th of February, Arbeiderbladet heads; “Asbjørn Sunde, the Norwegian leader
of Wollweber’s league.” The newspaper claims that the Norwegian underground work for the
Russians started decades ago. It argues that Sunde has used his experience and connections
from the Spanish Civil War to develop the Wollweber League in Norway. When Nazi
Germany invaded the USSR, this became the sign for retaliation throughout the league. It
writes that Sunde gathered fellow volunteers from the Spanish Civil War and founded the
Osvald-group30. Arbeiderbladet also claims that the leader of NKP at that time, Peder
Furubotn, signed an agreement with Sunde, making him the party’s head of sabotage.31 On
February 12 and 17 the newspaper writes that over 20 persons have been involved in this case,
23
Friheten 8.2.54
Friheten 9.2.54, “Et falskt bilde”, page 6
25
Aftenposten 9.2.54 evening edition, “En militær befalingsmann blant de arresterte spioner I Sundes liga”, page
1
26
Wollweber League. Real name: "Organisation against fascism and in support of the USSR" Founded by Ernst
Wollweber in 1936.
27
Aftenposten, 10.2.54, morning edition, “Befalingsmannen some er arrestert i spionasjesaken var et viktig
ledd”, page 1
28 Aftenposten 11.2.54, evening edition, “Overkonstabel arrestert i spionsaken”, page 1
29
Ibid
30
Arbeiderbladet, 9.2.54, “Asbjørn Sunde den norske leder av Wollwebers liga”, page 1
31
Arbeiderbladet 9.2.54, “Osvald var en erfaren sabotør alt før krigen” page 7
24
History HL
6
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
many of which have had contact with Mesjetinov, attaché at the Russian embassy.32 Again,
Arbeiderbladet’s assessment resembles that of Aftenposten. It seems to be establishing a
critical perspective by highlighting controversial assumptions regarding Sunde’s activities.
Morgenbladet humbly writes on February 9th that the public statement issued by the
police is too short to get a clear picture of the case. However, the newspaper finds it more
than sufficient enough to put the blame on Communism. It writes; “That is the danger with
communism – an ideological feeling of unity stronger than the loyalty towards one’s own
country is created. Thus the fight against communism is very important, even on the
ideological level.”33 We see that similarly to Aftenposten, Morgenbladet is also revealing that
the information about the case is scarce. Nonetheless, it is convinced that Communism is the
source behind the espionage even though there is no solid proof. It seems to base its
assessment upon worst-scenario thinking. Such a way of portraying the case appears very proAmerican and resembles the tendencies of McCarthyism.
On February the 10th the newspaper writes extensively about the background of the
case and its consequences for Norway’s security. It refers to a public statement by a police
officer saying that Sunde ruthlessly and without inhibitions administered his espionage.34 This
could mean that new information has become available to the public, in which case
Morgenbladet’s assessment is adequate. Nevertheless, it might also have found a police
officer that simply gives a subjective statement.
Friheten kept silent until February the 18th when a smaller article was posted.
However, on February 20th the newspaper launched an extensive series of criticism of the
coverage of the other newspapers so far.35 For instance, Arbeiderbladet receives criticism for
its attempt to use the case to smear the reputation of the members of the Osvald-grup, which
Friheten refers to as wartime heroes. Furthermore, Morgenbladet’s attack on communism is
compared to the Norwegian Nazi leader Vidkun Quisling’s notion of all communists being
traitors.36 Friheten argues that the intention of this smear-campaign is; “To launch a
propaganda offensive, creating American conditions of hysteria and fear of espionage.” The
newspaper deduces that the pro-armament politicians in the country need a period of hysteria
to justify their cause. Moreover, it believes that it is they, and not Sunde, that are the traitors
as they compromise Norway’s independence by subordinating it to NATO leadership.37
Summing up, we see that Friheten takes a radical anti-American stand. It criticizes the other
newspapers rather than focusing upon the case itself. This might be an appropriate reaction to
the increasing anti-communist touch the other newspapers are giving their coverage.
However, we must bear in mind that Friheten, is the official newspaper of NKP. Regardless
of the Party’s involvement in the case, its newspaper will to some extent defend it. This shows
the consequences of the Cold War, and a clear divide between being pro-Soviet or pro-USA.
32
Arbeiderbladet 12.2.54, “Over 20 implisert i spionsaken”, page 1 and Arbeiderbladet 17.2.54, “Utfordring fra
Sovjet og fast svar fra Norge” page 1
33
Morgenbladet 9.2.54, “Den nye spionsak”, page 5
34
Morgenbladet 10.2.54 “Sikre beviser mot Asbjørn Sunde” page 1
35
Friheten 20.2.54, “Spionasjesensasjon og politisk hets”, last page
36
Friheten 20.2.54, “Kommunismen og nasjonen” page 3
37
Ibid
History HL
7
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
July 1954 – The verdict
On Saturday the 3rd of July 1954, Asbjørn Sunde was sentenced to eight years of
imprisonment for espionage on behalf of the USSR38. None of the newspapers covered the
case before the following Monday. However, the coverage they gave that week revealed their
different perspectives to an even greater extent than in February.
On the 5th of July Aftenposted embraced the Court’s decision. It claims that after
thorough investigation and assessment of the evidence, Sunde’s horrible espionage activities
are now revealed. Moreover, the newspaper supports how the Court argues that Sunde was
driven by his Communist conviction to put a price on his country’s interests. This argument is
then used to account for the closing of the Court doors during examination of evidence
regarding Norway’s security.39 Aftenposten also claims that Sunde’s resistance work during
the German occupation is recognized, but it does not redeem his crimes. “The Court is sorry
to see that he leaves his skills and decisiveness at the disposal of a cause that might jeopardize
our country’s freedom and independence.”40 We see that the newspaper is clearly coming
along with the Court’s resolution. Especially the assumption that Sunde was twisted by
Communism to commit the crimes, even though this does not give any excuse for his actions.
It seems that Aftenposten emphasizes this assumption to put Communism in a bad light.
Later in the same number, the newspaper explains the consequences of the espionage.
It claims that military information that may leave Oslo completely defenseless has been
compromised. This will in turn lead to huge economic consequences from moving military
facilities.41 Hence, it argues that Sunde’s sentence is not long enough to make up for his
actions. It also deduces that the USSR’s espionage activity is found in every democratic
country, and most of the traitors are fanatic communists driven by their hatred against all
other forms of society. The newspaper then asks a very leading, rhetoric question; “is there
any doubt that we need an efficient security police?”42 We see that Aftenposten spreads fear
by elaborating the consequences of the espionage before it puts the blame on the USSR and
Communism. By following up with the question of the need for an efficient security police,
the newspaper seems to be encouraging increased rearmament.
Arbeiderbladet heads on the 5th of July that a unanimous Courtroom found Sunde
guilty in systematic espionage for the USSR.43 It claims that he has used every opportunity to
acquire information that would interest the Soviet Union. This includes manipulating and
exploiting people with access to military information. The newspaper then argues that this
information has been used in the USSR’s worldwide network of espionage and infiltration.
The result is that Oslo has been left completely defenseless, meaning that the costs of moving
compromised military facilities are deemed to be huge. Based on this, Arbeiderbladet
particularly agrees with the Court’s notion of the need to react very strictly in order to
discourage other spies. The newspaper also supports the Court’s assumption of Sunde being a
fanatical communist who has committed his crimes in accordance with his communist belief.
However, it writes that it is sorry to see that a man with good merits from the German
occupation has turned against the society he once assisted.44 Arbeiderbladet’s assessment is
38 Borgersrud, Lars, “Asbjørn Sunde”, Store norske leksikon,
http://www.snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Asbjørn_Sunde/utdypning16.5.11,
39 Aftenposten 5.7.54 “Asbjørn Sunde dømt til fengsel I 8 år.” page 1
40
Ibid
41
Ibid
42
Aftenposten 5.7.54 “Spionasjen mot vårt land” page 2
Arbeiderbladet 5.7.54 “Enstemmig lagmannsrett dømte Asbjørn Sunde for systematisk spionasje i Sovjets
tjeneste” page 1
44
Arbeiderbladet 5.7.54 “Et ledd i russernes verdensomspennende spionasjevirksomhet” page 1
43
History HL
8
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
quite similar to that of Aftenposten. It creates a picture of a cynical man who has worked
diligently to expose his own country to a hostile state. Behind it all is his devotion to the
communist ideology. This obviously creates fear of Communism.
In another article in the same edition, Arbeiderbladet praises the security police and
grants it all credits for the disclosure of the case. It also refers to an ongoing debate in which
the security police has received criticism. The basis for this criticism has been the fact that
their methods are secret to the public, which is against the principles of democracy45.
Arbeiderbladet points out that to reveal the methods of the security police would destroy their
opportunities of surprise in cases such as Sunde’s. It also uses this argument to defend the
closing of the Court doors during the assessment of information regarding the security of
Norway.46 The newspaper then writes that even though Sunde is exposed, it knows that there
are others with similar motives that are willing to betray their country. It claims that nothing
suggests that the USSR will reduce its recruitment of spies. To conclude with, the newspaper
encourages its readers to stay alert and guard our freedom.47 In this article, Arbeiderbladet is
clearly influenced by the Cold War fears. The security police is made to look barely strong
enough, and the Soviet threat is portrayed as relentless.
In Morgenbladet’s edition from the 5th of July, it posts with big letters on its first page
that the Court found no mitigating circumstances in Sunde’s case. It writes that the suspect
received a sentence of eight years imprisonment.48 Thereafter, the newspaper places its full
confidence in the Court’s verdict by a very clear-cut notion; “After weeks of thorough
interrogation the Court draws a unanimous conclusion so convincing that no one outside the
communists’ fanatic circle may doubt the question of guilt.” It then follows up by stating that
this case shows that there exists Norwegians that are willing to betray their country.49 Thus,
Morgenbladet reasons that the need for increased preparedness and general alert has become
apparent. It also included a reference to criticism it received some years ago after stating that
leading communists pose a threat to the Nordic countries. Considering the fact that Sunde was
a leading communist, the newspaper writes that it is appropriate to remind its readers of this
assertion.50 Similarly to the assessments of Arbeiderbladet and Aftenposten the inclusion of
such assertions create fear, which in turn is used in the urge for increased preparedness.
Nevertheless, Morgenbladet does not agree with the decision to close the Court doors during
a certain part of the trial. It believes that cases such as this should remain entirely public.51
This is a very important difference as it shows that Morgenbladet focuses upon the
importance of the investigative role of the press in a democracy, whereas the other
newspapers are more worried about the Soviet threat than protecting such democratic values.
The communist Friheten sees the verdict from a totally different perspective than the
other newspapers. Firstly, it criticizes the closing of the Court doors. The newspaper, believes
that the Court was induced to do so by the prosecution and the anti-communist publicity the
case has received since February. Furthermore, it claims that this publicity also persuaded the
Court to include political propaganda in its verdict. Friheten points out that by calling Sunde a
fanatic communist the Court is denouncing NKP and the communist ideology.52 Again the
fact that Sunde is not a member of the party is brought up. Likewise, it is attacking the claims
of the USSR’s presumed espionage and infiltration in democratic countries. Friheten actually
finds these claims ironic because the relation between the USSR and Norway was one of the
45
Arbeiderbladet 5.7.54 “To spioner” page 4
Ibid
47
Ibid
48
Morgenbladet 5.7.54 “Retten fant ikke ett formildende punkt for Sunde” page 1
49
Morgenbladet 5.7.54 “En klar dom” page 7
50
Ibid
51
Ibid
52
Friheten 5.7.54 “Asbjørn Sunde dømt til 8 års fengsel” page 7
46
History HL
9
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
reasons to why the Court doors were closed. Based on this, the newspaper deduces that the
attacks on communism and the USSR are used to give the security police free reins.53
Friheten’s response to the development of the case is clearly one of hostility. It defends the
party it is representing and reacts strongly to what it perceives as attacks on communism.
On the 6th of July, the Friheten writes that the Court received last-minute information
from the security police. During their search of Sunde’s apartment, they had apparently
overlooked an artillery canon in the attic. This new piece of evidence did not, according to
Friheten, have any significant effect on the verdict54. However, the newspaper believes this
shows that Sunde was operating on his own, rather than being part of a communist espionage
network. It also believes that the Court has neglected this theory because it did not fit with the
publicity the case has received from the other newspapers, and the security police. Based on
this, Friheten deduces that the overall intention has been to criminalize communism.55 It even
goes as far as to write that the other newspapers, in accordance with the security police,
locked the Court’s conclusion by causing sensation with “The Nordic countries’ biggest
espionage case”56. It claims that this created a strong anti-communist opinion, pushing the
Court. Thus, the verdict was deemed to be strict in order to justify the press’ prejudice and the
deviation from normal, public trial. Friheten believes that this case has been exploited and
used to denounce other political opinions than the pro-American ones.57 On the whole, the
newspaper is very adamant in its assessment: It is desperately trying to launder NKP and
communism by repeating that Sunde has been in opposition to the party since 193658. What’s
more is that it makes the publicity the case received seem as an anti-communist convention
where the press, security police and the Court joined in. In this sense, Friheten portrays the
case as a political tool used to alienate the USSR and communism.
Conclusion
The objective of this extended essay is to analyze how the Norwegian newspapers
Aftenposten, Morgenbladet, Arbeiderbladet and Friheten portrayed the espionage case of
Asbjørn Sunde from 1954. I have not considered Sunde’s question of guilt, but how the
newspapers interpreted it. This includes what they emphasized and in what ways they
presented their views.
Firstly, Aftenposten and Arbeiderbladet show striking similarities in their assessment.
They both elaborate the case with big headlines and by far the most extensive background
information about Sunde. They use this information to make bold assumptions and
accusations regarding Sunde’s devotion to the USSR and his Communist affiliation. The
result is that they create fear, which in turn is used in an urge for a strengthened security
police to counter of the USSR’s espionage activity. What the two newspapers also have in
common is that they embrace the Court’s verdict and show understanding for the closing of
the Court doors. However, Arbeiderbladet recognized the discussion regarding democratic
values. This shows that the newspaper pays attention to the importance of these values, but
prioritizes the security of the state.
If one were to solely consider the political links of the two newspapers, the similarities
may not be expected. Aftenposten was at that time conservative, while Arbeiderbladet was the
official newspaper of the ruling Social Democratic Party, Arbeiderpartiet. However, both
53
Friheten 5.7.54 “Asbjørn Sunde dømt til 8 års fengsel” page 7
Friheten 6.7.54 “Sunde-sakens fasit” page 2
55
Ibid
56
Ibid
57
Ibid
58
Ibid
54
History HL
10
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
Arbeiderpartiet and the non-socialist opposition agreed upon the pro-USA foreign policy of
that time.59 This, I believe gives a reason to why the two newspapers cover the case in so
similar ways. The goal of their coverage seems to be to create a picture of a terrible case that
the government could use as a political argument. However, the newspapers could also have
been deluded by the fear of the Cold War, and thus pursuing arguments that could denounce
Communism and encourage increased preparedness. In this sense, they have been so affected
by the fear of Communism that they believed in their own assumptions.
The conservative Morgenbladet also created big posts. But, it was a lot more humble
when it came to background information. Nevertheless, what characterized its assessment was
definitely the premature hostility towards communism. Similarly, to Aftenposten and
Arbeiderbladet, Morgenbladet also encouraged increased preparedness due to the espionage
threat from the USSR. However, it did not in any way support the closing of the Court doors.
I believe that this is a very important difference as it shows that the newspaper does not let the
influence of the Cold War affect democratic values.
Communist Friheten is in my opinion greatly affected by its editorial line. It has
portrayed the case as an anti-communist convention where the press, Court and the security
police all played their part. The newspaper claims that the objective of this “convention” was
to criminalize communism and encourage increased preparedness. Accordingly, it believes
that the verdict is not based upon evidence, but on the pressure caused by sensational
publicity and the security police’s influence. Even though some details are overdramatized, I
believe that Friheten rightly revealed that, if not the Court’s decision, at least the publicity the
case received has been subjectively hostile to communism and the USSR.
59
Libæk, Ivar, Historie Vg3 Fra 1700-tallet til i dag, Cappelen Damm As, Oslo 2008, page 340
History HL
11
Lavrans T. Spiteri
Extended Essay
Bibliography
Primary sources
 Aftenposten, Oslo, February and July, 1954, The National Library, Oslo
 Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, February and July, 1954, The National Library, Oslo
 Friheten, Oslo, February and July, 1954, The National Library, Oslo
 Morgenbladet, Oslo, February and July, 1954, The National Library, Oslo
Secondary sources
 Borgersrud, Lars, “Asbjørn Sunde”, Store norske leksikon, 16.5.11,
http://www.snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Asbjørn_Sunde/utdypning Store norske leksikon, date:
16.5.11
 Borgersrud, Lars, Fiendebilde Wollweber, Oktober 2001, Oslo
 Haynes, John Earl and Klehr, Harvey, Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials
That Shaped American Politics, Cambridge University Press 2006, New York.
 Libæk, Ivar, Historie Vg3 Fra 1700-tallet til i dag, Cappelen Damm As, Oslo 2008,
page 340
 Lowe, Norman, Mastering Modern World History, Palgrave Macmillian 2005, New
York
 Rogers, Kelly and Thomas, Jo, History 20th Century World: The Cold War, Pearson
Education Limited 2008, UK
 Ulateig, Egil, Raud krigar raud spion, Det norske samlaget 1989, Oslo, page 246
History HL
12