89 Sodobni vojaški izzivi, junij 2017 – 19/št. 2
Contemporary Military Challenges, June 2017 – 19/No. 2
DOLGA	POT	DO	URADNE	DANSKE	VETERANSKE
POLITIKE,	1848–2010
Niels Bo Poulsen, 
Jakob Brink Rasmussen
THE	LONG	ROAD	TOWARDS	AN	OFFICIAL
DANISH	VETERANS’	POLICY,	1848-2010
Povzetek
Ključne 
besede
Abstract
Čeprav je Danska država, ki je imela v več sto letih več deset tisoč vojnih veteranov, 
so raziskave na to temo še vedno na začetni stopnji v primerjavi z drugimi državami. 
To najboljše pojasnjujejo številni zgodovinski, kulturni in politični dejavniki, od 
katerih je najbolj presenetljiva resnična odsotnost vojne že od leta 1864. Zaradi 
vedno večje vključenosti Danske v misije OZN in Nata od konca hladne vojne pa 
je pojem danskih »veteranov« ponovno oživel kot politični dejavnik in kot predmet 
proučevanja. Vlada je zato leta 2010 prvič v zgodovini sprejela državno veteransko 
politiko. Članek obravnava skoraj popolno neprepoznavnost vojnih veteranov v 
danski družbi in odsotnost uradne veteranske politike do leta 2010. Vzrok, zakaj 
je Danska šele pred kratkim sprejela politiko veteranov, najverjetneje izhaja iz 
kombinacije dejavnikov, kot so majhno število vojnih veteranov, socialna država, 
politična konjunktura in sprememba danskih čezmorskih vojaških operacij iz 
prvotnih operacij za ohranjanje miru v prave bojne operacije.
Vojni veterani, vojaška zgodovina, Danska.
Despite Denmark being a nation that over the course of hundreds of years has 
produced tens of thousands of war veterans, research on this subject is still in its 
nascent phase compared to that of other nations. This is best explained by a number 
of historical, cultural and political factors, of which the virtual absence of war since 
1864 is the most striking. Following Denmark’s increasing involvement in “hot” UN 
and NATO missions since the end of the Cold War, the notion of Danish “veterans” 
has resurfaced, both as a political factor and as a subject of study. Consequently, 
in 2010 the government adopted the first-ever Danish veterans’ policy. This paper 
addresses the virtual invisibility of Danish war veterans in Danish society and the 
absence of an official veterans’ policy until 2010. It is argued that a combination of 
factors, such as the low number of war veterans, the existence of a welfare state, 
DOI:10.33179/BSV.99.SVI.11.CMC.19.2.6
90 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
political conjunctures, and the change in Danish overseas military operations from 
primarily involving peacekeeping to being actual combat missions, may explain why 
Denmark has only recently adopted a veterans’ policy. 
War veterans, military history, Denmark. 
During his annual address at the parliamentary opening after the summer break in 
2010, the Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, stated, “Denmark has one 
of the world’s best welfare societies, but we are still only learning what it means to 
be a veteran after serving overseas in international missions” (Rasmussen, 2010). 
He subsequently announced that the Government would soon present the first-ever 
national Danish veterans’ policy. The words spoken by the Prime Minister were not 
fully apprehensible – how can a society learn what it is like to be a veteran, one 
might ask? But the meaning was clear when read in context; for a prolonged period, 
Danish society had neither been acutely aware of its veterans nor created special 
policies to address veteran-related issues. Until early in the 2000s, the term “war 
veteran” found limited usage in Denmark, essentially being only applicable to ex-
soldiers from foreign armies and/or the Napoleonic era and older.
This paper traces the gradual emergence of the notion of Danish war veterans since 
the 1990s and the closely related surfacing of a political discussion of how to honour 
the veterans and address their material and emotional needs. By studying a variety 
of veterans’ groups, it provides an understanding of how different their relationship 
to society in general was and thus why Denmark did not adopt a veterans’ policy 
much earlier. We also look into how the current policy was born and subsequently 
revised, and argue that the fact that Denmark’s veterans’ policy is a comparatively 
modest one is best explained by a combination of historical experience and the 
strong welfare state.
1 THE DISAPPEARANCE OF WAR VETERANS – DENMARK 1848-1994
Being frequently involved in wars until the mid-nineteenth century, Denmark, like 
most other nations, had always had war veterans. But it is debatable at what point 
Danish nationalism reached such cohesion as to create a strong link between the 
nation as such and the soldiers defending it – thus establishing the idea of a national 
obligation to support and celebrate the nation’s war veterans. It is safe to say that 
until 1849, when Denmark became a constitutional monarchy and introduced general 
conscription, the army and navy were the king’s personal forces, not the nation’s. It 
was also the king’s obligation to care for the well-being of infirm or needy soldiers 
who had been discharged in good grace. This was regulated by various royal decrees, 
some dating as far back as the early seventeenth century. When possible, ex-soldiers 
and NCOs were assigned other jobs (e.g. as customs officials) when discharged, as 
a means of both tapping their skills and catering for their well-being. In addition, 
Key words
Introduction
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 91 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
special institutions such as Kvæsthuset (literally: the house of the wounded) were set 
up, serving both as military hospitals and as homes for infirm veterans.
These tasks were eased by the fact that the armed forces in early modern Denmark, 
by and large, consisted of a standing force of hired, often foreign, soldiers with a 
service span of around twenty years – so the soldiers rarely lived long after being 
retired, if they even reached retirement age. Nevertheless, with the emergence of a 
nationalist public opinion during the late eighteenth century, first among Copenhagen 
civil servants and intellectuals, and gradually as a mass phenomenon, the well-being 
of the members of the armed forces were increasingly seen as an obligation of the 
whole nation. This notion first emerged in earnest in Denmark during the Napoleonic 
wars, in which the country fought a brief war with England in 1801 and participated 
on the French side from 1807 to 1814 (Lundgreen-Nielsen, 1992). Following these 
events, a popular remembrance culture dedicated to the veterans came into being. 
It was during this period that Danish war monuments first began to celebrate “the 
common soldier” in their dedication texts (Adriansen, 2010). Significantly, this was 
also the first time private initiatives were taken to secure the material well-being of 
the wounded servicemen, as well as of the widows and orphaned left behind by those 
who had perished (Lundgreen-Nielsen, 1992, p. 113).
It was the combination of nationalism, democracy, general conscription and a new 
war – the Slesvig War of 1848-1850 – that in earnest created the conditions for the 
general acceptance of the idea that the nation ought to celebrate and, if need be, 
materially support its veterans and their dependants. In 1859, the veterans of the 
1848-1850 Slesvig war organized themselves in De danske  Våbenbrødre (the Danish 
brothers-in-arms): the first mass veterans’ organization we know of in Denmark. As 
the name indicates, the term “veteran” was not the preferred self-description of these 
men. Indeed, when reading the material left by the Våbenbrødre, one does not find 
the term being used at all. This association had a threefold purpose: according to 
its statutes, the Våbenbrødre came together firstly in order to commemorate their 
joint experiences during the war; secondly, with the aim of strengthening the will to 
defend Denmark; and finally in order to render support to members in need. At its 
peak in 1877, after having admitted into its ranks the soldiers who fought in the 1864 
war against Prussia and Austria, the association had around 30,000 members – a very 
respectable figure for its time (Poulsen, 2016). While a veritable “cult of the fallen 
soldier” – to use George Mosse’s formulation – arose in Denmark over the next 
decades, the veterans achieved few tangible material benefits from having fought 
for Denmark (Mosse, 1991). But, more importantly, neither did they seem to expect 
such benefits. In line with the way various strata of society in medieval and early 
modern Denmark had established guilds which not only represented the members’ 
corporate interests and maintained their identity, but also provided social security 
for them, the Våbenbrødre, via the association’s membership fee and other sources 
of income such as a lottery, provided cheap loans, funerals and assistance to widows 
and orphans after the death of members.
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
 92 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Rather than vying for material support, the Våbenbrødre sought due recognition of 
the war veterans as national heroes, and in 1877, after sustained agitation, it obtained 
the reward of a medal to all men who had fought in the wars of 1848-1850 and 1864. 
Furthermore, in 1888, a 40-year anniversary gift was granted by the government to 
those who had fought in the 1848-1850 war. In 1898, all the veterans from the war of 
1848-50 were declared eligible to receive an annual lump sum of 100 Danish Kroner 
as a token of the nation’s appreciation. In 1914 – when the 50-year anniversary of the 
1864 war was commemorated – this same gesture was also extended to the veterans 
of this war. It was, however, a very modest sum – equivalent to less than 1,000 euro a 
year in present-day value (Slaegtsalbum.dk). Furthermore, given that this annual gift 
was introduced as late as 50 years after the first of the Slesvig wars, only a fraction 
of the veterans benefited from this. Thus, while the almost 100,000 veterans of the 
1848-50 and 1864 wars were held in high esteem by the nation, this did not turn them 
into an entitlement group deriving sizeable monetary or other material benefits from 
their service.
The 1864 war, in which Denmark was utterly defeated, was to become the last 
prolonged war fought on Danish territory. The defeat signalled the beginning 
of a time period characterized by a strong pacifist, if not outright defeatist, trend 
in Danish politics. Until 1949, when Denmark joined NATO, the Danish polity 
was deeply divided in its view of the utility of armed forces, and even during the 
Cold War Denmark remained, as aptly phrased by the historian Poul Villiaume, a 
“reluctant ally” (Villiaume, 1995). Three in particular of the four dominant political 
parties – Venstre (the Liberals), Socialdemokratiet (the Social Democrats) and 
RadikaleVenstre (the Left Liberals) – were manifestly anti-militaristic, and their 
virtual domination of the political landscape during most of the twentieth century 
contributed greatly to preventing the Våbenbrødre from playing a political role 
as such. The Våbenbrødre, in turn, contributed to their own increasing political 
impotence by deciding after the 1864 war not to admit new members. In contrast to 
neighbouring Germany, a strong patriotic and militaristic movement of veterans and 
ex-conscripts thus never materialized (Poulsen, 2016). Equally importantly, while 
considerable commemoration of the wars took place, a comprehensive veterans’ 
policy was never adopted, and there were virtually no material benefits rendered to 
the veterans except for some of the most highly decorated and severely disabled, as 
indicated above.    
Denmark’s ability to keep itself neutral during World War I, together with the rapid 
German invasion of Denmark on 9 April 1940, were highly significant factors in 
further limiting the role of war veterans in Danish society. This virtual absence of 
war between 1864 and Denmark’s participation in the 1999 NATO action in Kosovo 
meant that the country ceased to produce war veterans, at least if we limit the 
definition to soldiers officially sent to war by the government under the Danish flag. 
This, however, does not imply that no war veterans emerged in Denmark during the 
first half of the twentieth century; only that the Danish armed forces as such did not 
produce any.
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 93 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
After World War I, part of the territories lost to Germany in 1864 were recovered, 
resulting in Denmark “inheriting” 30,000-35,000 war veterans from Germany – the 
majority being members of the Danish-speaking population in Slesvig. In order to 
integrate this group into society, the Danish government adopted a generous package 
of measures to cater for the disabled veterans, as well as for the dependants of fallen 
soldiers. However, this legislation was not made universal, as it was limited to World 
War I veterans only (Marckmann, 2001). 
During the decades following World War I, Danish citizens fought in such wars as 
the Russian Civil War, the Spanish Civil War and the Finnish-Soviet Winter War. 
These volunteers to foreign wars were, like previous groups of volunteers such as 
Danes fighting for the Entente during World War One, small and not awarded any 
official recognition as veterans.
World War II generated, if one applies a broad definition of “war veterans”, four 
distinct groups of veterans – all essentially having gone to war without any official 
recognition from the Danish state. Firstly, around 6,000 Danish citizens volunteered 
for German armed service during the war, primarily in the Waffen-SS. Secondly, 
around 1,000 Danes joined the Allied forces. Thirdly, another 6,000 Danish sailors 
manned ships sailing for the Allies. Finally, a diverse movement of resistance fighters 
emerged. Depending on whether one only counts the hardcore of fighters, carrying 
out sabotage or applying other violent means, or everyone rendering support to the 
resistance fight, the figure is between a few thousand and up to 50,000 (Poulsen, 
2016).   
These groups related to official Denmark in very different ways in the post-war 
period. The former SS-soldiers were sentenced for treason, and in cases where they 
had been NCOs or officers in the Danish armed forces prior to their enlistment in 
the SS, they lost their positions and pensions. Believing that they had been unjustly 
treated, some of the veterans organized and tried to influence popular opinion in 
order to have their sentences nullified and to be rehabilitated. Their efforts were not 
crowned with any success, and most of the former SS-soldiers, instead of fighting a 
lost cause, turned their energies inward and established their own internal networks 
for both material assistance and commemoration. During the early post-war period 
the SS-veterans’ associations were monitored by the Danish intelligence service, and 
as of today the only monument explicitly dedicated to these men is a small stone on 
a private lot of land in western Denmark (Poulsen, 2016).
In contrast, the members of the resistance movement and Danes in the Allied armed 
services were treated as heroes after the war. A significant number of monuments 
in their honour were erected, and the Danish state maintains a special museum 
dedicated to the resistance movement. Members of the resistance movement were, 
however, not given any special veteran status by the authorities, and their material 
and medical needs were administered under a piece of legislation devised for all 
who had been negatively affected by the occupation – the so-called Erstatningsloven 
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
94 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
(the Compensation Act) (Kirchhoff 2002, p. 126). The most significant step towards 
bestowing official recognition on the ex-resistance fighters was parliament’s adoption 
of a fast-track procedure for obtaining a junior officer rank in the armed forces for 
those who so desired. However, only a minority of ex-resistance fighters availed 
themselves of this opportunity. Instead of seeking privileges for its members, the 
resistance movement officially declared that its members had simply done their 
patriotic duty, and expected neither medals nor entitlements. This set the tone, and 
no comprehensive set of measures was adopted. This in turn had consequences 
for the limited number of Danish soldiers who had seen combat on either 9 April 
1940, the day of the German attack, or on 29 August 1943, when the Germans tried 
to disarm the remaining Danish forces. During the war a special commemorative 
medal had already been planned, but after the liberation in Spring 1945, when it 
became clear that the resistance movement did not want a medal for its members, 
the project was quietly shelved (Jørgensen, 2009). The only step taken was the 
introduction of an honorary gift, essentially modelled on the measures taken after 
the wars over Slesvig, to the wounded soldiers and the dependants of the fallen 
soldiers (Retsinformation.dk, 1940). Even today, the question over a medal to the 
soldiers fighting on 9 April and 29 August is debated in the Danish parliament at 
infrequent intervals (Krarup, 2016).
While the resistance movement members and the armed forces were celebrated 
nonetheless with numerous monuments and annual commemorative dates, such as 
29 August and 5 May, one group whose members also had seen – at least indirectly – 
armed action was virtually forgotten: the war sailors. Almost one in six had died 
during the war, and Danish sea men had not only played a role in manning the ships 
that ran the gauntlet between German submarines in the Atlantic, but some had also 
served as crew members on the ships taking part in the Normandy landings in June 
1944. The lack of popular – and state – recognition of the deeds of these men probably 
reflects both that the sailors were seen as essentially non-combatants, and also that 
the rank-and-file sailors came from the lower segments of society. On top of that, 
many sailors continued sailing abroad, and thus had limited visibility in Denmark, 
just as they had no strong organization to represent their interests. Only in 1969 was 
the above-mentioned legislation, related to those victimized by the war, extended to 
cover the sailors, and not until 2014 was a monument dedicated to the sailors erected, 
on Utah Beach in Normandy. In addition, a monument at the memorial complex 
Mindelunden in Ryvangen, devoted to resistance fighters executed by the Germans, 
has been planned (Arkitektforeningen, 2016).
Following the end of the war, the Danish defence force was only slowly and with 
considerable difficulty rebuilt, and after 1949 integrated into NATO. Whereas 
the dominant role of the armed forces during the Cold War was to participate in 
defending the country against an invasion from the east, Denmark also contributed 
to UN peacekeeping missions, both by seconding individual officers and by sending 
out contingents of regular troops, e.g. to Gaza and Cyprus. In addition, between 1948 
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 95 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
and 1954, a Danish brigade was stationed in north-western Germany as part of the 
Allied occupation forces there.
These postings were by and large undramatic and virtually without any occurrence of 
combat or casualties. Although various small and informal “clubs” were established 
by the troops returning from the missions mentioned above, these associations were 
primarily inward-looking and did not really try to influence the greater public, or 
politicians for that matter. It was during this period that what eventually became the 
most influential contemporary Danish veteran organization, De Blå Baretter (The 
Blue Berets), was established. Although it was founded in 1968, this association 
enjoyed a relatively tranquil existence until the early 1990s, primarily serving as 
a venue for nostalgic and backward-looking activities rather than being a visible 
veterans’ lobby organization.
One of the main reasons for this state of affairs may well have been the general 
anti-military attitude that characterized Denmark from the early 1960s until the 
1980s. There was limited political interest in establishing a veterans’ policy. Rather, 
the decision-makers’ attention and energy was consumed by simply maintaining a 
credible defence force during a time period characterized both by successive periods 
of economic recession and by ever-growing demands for funding from other sectors. 
This was also the period during which a Danish welfare state was established in 
earnest, thus also eroding any need for special measures targeting the material 
wellbeing of veterans.
As this survey shows, the period 1848-1993 was characterized by a virtual absence 
of a comprehensive veterans’ policy. This development can be explained by several 
factors. Firstly, the most distinct, popularly acknowledged and well-organized 
veterans – the Våbenbrødre – were active at a time when the state only had limited 
means at its disposal and when state support of citizens in need was virtually unheard 
of in Denmark, as well as abroad. In addition, the Våbenbrødre failed to put the 
question of material support for needy veterans on the agenda. Secondly, after 1864 
the general population increasingly became alienated from the idea that a small state 
like Denmark could benefit from the use of military power – forcefully formulated 
by a leading opinion maker as Hvad skal det nytte? (translation: To what end should 
we defend ourselves?) Thirdly, after 1864 Denmark virtually ceased to produce 
veterans – at least if we define them as people being sent to war by the Danish state. 
As the Våbenbrødre failed to link up to associations of former conscripts or to open 
its own ranks to other veterans, such as the Danes who had fought in the Kaiser’s 
army during World War I, no strong veterans’ movement ever emerged. During the 
Cold War there was widespread disbelief that the defence force would ever be used 
for waging war, and if this did come to pass nonetheless, it was believed that such a 
war would rapidly escalate into a thermonuclear conflict, thus rendering any idea of 
a subsequent veterans’ policy absurd. Furthermore, at least before the 1990s, Danish 
troops being sent on peacekeeping missions were generally the laughing-stock of the 
defence force. These soldiers were seen as holiday fighters whose biggest risk was 
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
 96 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
getting sunburnt, excessively drunk, or experiencing an accident due to hazardous 
driving. This negative image of the Danish veterans, together with the establishment 
of a welfare state with generous benefits to the sick, maladjusted and needy, rendered 
a veterans policy both inexpedient and unnecessary, at least until the end of the Cold 
War. 
 2 FROM COLD WAR TO COMBAT MISSIONS: THE GRADUAL 
EMERGENCE OF THE NOTION OF DANISH WAR VETERANS,  
1992-2010
Considering this background, it is hardly surprising that neither the Danish 
government, the defence force, nor the population in general realised that the soldiers 
tasked with peacekeeping missions in former Yugoslavia from 1992 onwards were 
treading new territory.
The experiences of Danish soldiers in Croatia, and especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina 
(hereafter “Bosnia”, differed significantly from what soldiers had become used to 
on missions such as to Cyprus. The more than three years of fighting between the 
different nationalist armies and paramilitary groups was characterized by an almost 
total neglect of the rules and customs of war. In contrast to the Cold War conflicts, 
where United Nations peacekeepers had been deployed and were by and large 
respected by the parties of the conflicts, events in Croatia and Bosnia showed that 
neutral peacekeepers could also be targeted by the warring parties – the range of 
incidents ran from threats and hostage-taking over extensive mining to sniping and 
shelling. Furthermore, the peacekeepers had to tackle such threats with inadequate 
mandates informed by their previous missions, where actual fighting had normally 
ceased and the parties were in the phase of peace negotiations (see for instance 
Rasmussen, 2014; Burg & Shoup, 1999). 
As the war in Bosnia dragged on, it soon became obvious that there was absolutely no 
peace to keep. In addition, due to the weak mandates, the international peacekeepers 
could do little when extreme violence was directed toward civilians. The prime 
example of the Security Council’s inadequate means of response to new types of 
conflict was the genocide in the Srebrenica enclave in July 1995, in which a Dutch 
battalion was incapable of stopping the advancing Bosnian Serb units from entering 
the area and subsequently killing around 8,000 Muslim men and boys. Albeit on 
a lesser scale, Danish soldiers, in both Croatia and Bosnia, experienced similar 
events during their deployments between 1992 and 1995 (Rasmussen, 2014). To a 
certain extent, the situation was repeated when Danish troops were sent to Kosovo 
in 1999. However, dramatic as they were, events in the Balkans were surpassed by 
what happened when Danish contingents from 2001 and 2003 respectively, were 
seconded to Afghanistan and Iraq; in contrast to the missions in the Balkans, the 
missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were actual combat deployments.  
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 97 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
Thus, from 1992 onwards an almost uninterrupted stream of soldiers returned from 
“hot missions abroad”, and in 2009 it was estimated that Danish soldiers had served 
almost 60,000 tours of duty abroad since the end of the Cold War.1 During the last 
two decades, Denmark has thus experienced a significant change in its political 
willingness to use military force, accompanied by an equally remarkable shift in how 
the population perceives the military. Following activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, 
it has become somewhat more publically acknowledged that casualties accompany 
participation in war. Between 2002 and 2014, Denmark suffered 43 causalities – the 
highest national rate in the ISAF force relative to population size.
Both politicians and the population responded to the severe fighting and the high 
number of casualties with remarkable tolerance. Seen in the context of decades-long 
scepticism towards using the military instrument, this signified a remarkable change 
in the role and visibility of the armed forces in society (Jakobsen, 2004). Another, 
related, change was on its way, too: the notion of Danish war veterans. Until the 
late 1990s, how to care for former servicemen was something contemporary Danes 
associated with American Vietnam war movies. But now a number of popular 
initiatives appeared. A yellow ribbon calling for the support of “our soldiers” 
was introduced in 2007 by a newly established association for family members 
of soldiers deployed on international missions (Hornemann, 2009). The bumper-
sticker version rapidly gained visibility and appeared on a large number of vehicles 
across the country. In less than a decade this and other steps to honour the veterans 
developed into an elaborate body of official and semi-official measures, including 
almost a dozen different associations related to war veterans. On 5 September 2009, 
the nation celebrated its first national flag day to celebrate both veterans and those 
who are currently deployed. One year later the first-ever Danish veterans’ policy was 
adopted, and in 2011 a major national monument, dedicated to Denmark’s fallen in 
international military missions since 1945, was inaugurated. 
It is safe to claim that prior to Denmark’s decision to deploy troops to Afghanistan, 
following 11 September 2001, there was limited public awareness of the fact that 
more and more Danish soldiers were returning from missions in warlike conditions 
abroad. It is instructive that the word “veteran” was virtually absent from public 
discourse at the time and only came into use as a term for Danish soldiers returning 
from abroad during the 2000s. 
Likewise, the actual term “war veteran” or simply “veteran” only appeared in earnest 
in parliamentary debates after the adoption of the veterans’ policy in 2010.2 It was 
therefore not until the spring of 2011, when MP Holger K. Nielsen, from the leftist 
Socialistisk Folkeparti (the Socialist People’s Party), asked the MoD a question 
about economic compensation to “war veterans”, that the term entered parliamentary 
1 This figure does not, however, represent the total number of veterans, as a considerable number of personnel 
completed more than one tour of duty.
2 Based on a search of the official records of the parliament at http://www.ft.dk/.
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
98 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
debates (Question no. S 1677, 2011). The only exception was a debate from 2009 in 
which MPs discussed the possibility of establishing a “veterans’ home” (Question 
no.1591, 2009).
While some debate about the well-being of returning soldiers had taken place in 
parliament during the Yugoslav wars of succession, it was clearly the much more 
“warlike” missions in Afghanistan and Iraq which ignited a much deeper popular and 
political interest in Denmark’s homecoming soldiers. In contrast to the discussions 
during, and in the immediate aftermath of, the Balkan missions of the 1990s and early 
2000s, a novel feature characterized the new discussions: the preventive element; the 
focus on preventing occurrences of PTSD was reflected in several inquiries to the 
MoD. For instance, in February 2003 MP Villy Søvndal  – also from Socialistisk 
Folkeparti – posed the following question to the minister:
Does the minister intend to inform the Danish soldiers who are to be sent to the war 
in Iraq that previously deployed [soldiers] have returned with diseases that in public 
debates are referred to as “the Gulf Syndrome”? (Question no. S 2090, 2003).
While the quotes above concern purely clinical issues related to international 
deployments, the discussions following Afghanistan and Iraq also took a rather 
socio-economic turn. This was reflected later in 2006, when MP Holger K. Nielsen 
asked the MoD the following question:
“What initiatives does the minister intend to undertake in order to ensure that relatives 
of deployed soldiers who die or incur debilitating injuries during deployment avoid 
falling into economic hardship as a result of the Danish Defence’s inadequate 
compensation regulations?” (Nielsen, 2006)
This review of Danish debates on the status of Danish soldiers returning from 
international missions points to a general tendency: discussions about veterans seem 
to have been dependent on Danish participation in a new type of mission beginning 
in the early 2000s. That they triggered growing public and political interest in the 
matter was probably due to a combination of factors. First of all, these missions 
were much more violent than previous ones, thus resulting in more casualties and 
a greater number of veterans in need of physical rehabilitation. In addition to a 
number of soldiers developing psychological problems following participation 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was also at about this time that it became clear to the 
public that some of the soldiers who had been posted to the Balkans during the 
1990s were suffering from mental health problems. Thirdly, it deserves mention 
that Denmark’s participation in the American-led war against Iraq in 2003 severely 
divided politicians. Although all politicians spoke in a pro-veteran discourse, one 
cannot avoid wondering whether the increased focus on the veterans’ wellbeing by 
some of the politicians who were against the war in Iraq was a subtle attempt to 
delegitimize the war. 
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
99 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
3 THE FORMULATION OF DENMARK’S VETERAN POLICY IN 2010
In October 2010, the Danish government adopted the country’s first-ever national 
veteran policy. The adoption of the 2010-2014 defence agreement, which preceded 
the veteran policy, was backed by all parties except for Enhedslisten (the Unity 
List) – a socialist party known for its opposition to the country’s armed forces. The 
period surrounding the adoption of the policy triggered some interesting public 
debates regarding veterans’ position in Danish society, as well as debates about the 
need to offer veterans special treatment in a number of areas. These debates could be 
observed in both press and parliamentary settings. The following section will focus 
on the discussions in the press.
It was during 2008 that the idea of formulating a national veteran policy gained 
momentum.3 It seems that the debate was pushed forward by individuals and 
not as a result of extensive group mobilization “from below”. Among the most 
noteworthy of these individuals was MP Jørgen Poulsen from the ultra-liberal party 
Ny Alliance (New Alliance), the former secretary general of the Danish chapter of 
the International Red Cross. In April 2008, Poulsen commented harshly on how the 
Danish population as a whole and the government in particular responded to being 
at war. According to Poulsen, Danes simply did not realize that Denmark was now 
a belligerent nation. This was due to the nation’s lack of military experience in the 
past, which had resulted in a non-existent “culture of war and veterans”:
“Other countries that are more experienced belligerent nations have a system that 
gives the impression that it is not only soldiers who go to war but the whole nation. 
(…) There is a need for the [Danish] government to implement a genuine veteran 
policy. (…) [W]e have generally failed in developing a culture in which we as a nation 
express our appreciation of the effort that the soldiers make and the sacrifices that 
some soldiers face, as well as the grief that this causes their families” (Poulsen, 2008).
Poulsen’s comments brought to light exactly what seems to have been the challenge 
for Denmark at this point; the almost complete lack of war experience from 1864 up 
until the 1990s had left the country (and its politicians) in a peculiar situation: the 
nation as a whole had virtually no experience with “modern veterans” and absolutely 
no knowledge of the challenges associated with returning war veterans.
Following almost a decade of continuous participation in the wars in Afghanistan 
and Iraq, public debates intensified between 2009 and 2010, one of the main points 
of contention being whether disabled war veterans should be given preferential 
treatment. Members from the Dansk Folkeparti and Venstre argued in a major 
Danish newspaper that veterans should enjoy special treatment in Danish society. 
They argued, “that those folks who have fought for ideals enjoy special rights, 
or at least they ought to” (Kingsey, 2009). A high-ranking member of the largest 
3 A survey of the media by means of the Danish news media search engine INFOMEDIA.dk indicates that there 
was absolutely no media coverage of the subject prior to 2008.
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
 100 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
opposition party at that time, Socialdemokraterne, used the same rhetoric in the same 
article (Kingsey, 2009). However, not all parties in parliament shared this view. The 
parliamentary party speakers on disability politics from Det Radikale Venstre and 
Socialistisk Folkeparti argued against secluding Danish veterans from the general 
health system and establishing a privileged system for them. They argued that even 
though veterans constituted a “special group” who should be offered services related 
to their needs, it would be an improper move if the Danish government decided 
to start treating its citizens differently – even though some of them had served in 
international military missions (B. dk, 2009).
It was not only politicians who tried to impact the debate prior to the adoption of 
the veteran policy in 2010. Other actors within the military forces, former officers 
and NGOs also had their say in the debate. Bjarne Hesselberg, then president of De 
Blå Baretter, argued in late 2009 that Danish society was obliged to offer special 
treatment for its veterans because it had sent them to war:
“Society has to define for itself what commitments it has towards the soldiers and 
their families before and after a deployment. Society is designed to take care of 
citizens who live in Denmark (…); now we will see problems [related to war veterans] 
arising because of policies decided by a majority in parliament.” (Svendsen, 2009).
Directly asked whether Danish society should establish a kind of parallel health and 
welfare system geared towards veteran care, Hesselberg argued that:
“(…) if the soldier returns with a disability and is ready to get back to life, to 
rehabilitation and disability housing, which the municipal system cannot offer at the 
moment, there is a need for an extraordinary allocation [of resources] compared to 
other disabled people. You might call that a parallel system.” (Svendsen, 2009).
Finally, Hesselberg argued that the main argument in favour of special treatment of 
veterans lies in the soldier’s profession:
“You can have a political opinion on whether Iraq, Afghanistan or the Balkans were 
a good idea. The soldiers who are deployed can privately assess whether they agree 
or not, but they do what a parliamentary majority has asked them to do.” (Svendsen, 
2009).
The discussions on how to treat Danish veterans also caused representatives from 
Danish disability NGOs to take part in the debate. Susanne Olsen, president of 
Dansk Handicap Forbund, agreed with Hesselberg that veterans constituted a special 
societal group and could be entitled to special treatment (Kingsey, 2009). However, 
it is interesting to note that, six months later, Susanne Olsen radically changed her 
opinion. Following a comment by Colonel Lars R. Møller in March 2010, that 
veterans should enjoy preferential treatment when it came to certain clinical services, 
Susanne Olsen made the following statement in a Danish newspaper:
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 101 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
“(…) I think it is unacceptable that a military commander demands special status for 
soldiers by demeaning all other human beings with a disability. It is despicable that 
we even have to have this discussion. Soldiers should be treated on equal terms and 
with the same respect as anyone else with the same disability” (Pedersen and Westh, 
2010).
It seems that the closer the adoption of the veteran policy came, the more public 
discussions turned into a battle between different stakeholders about the limited 
resources allocated to the disability sector.
It is important to note that not all veterans called for treating veterans differently 
from other citizens, and thereby did not agree with people such as Hesselberg. 
Debates between the veterans themselves also surfaced a few months before the 
government adopted the veteran policy. An example of this is Danish veteran Kasper 
Kiran Larsen, who had lost half of his right arm and all of his right leg. Larsen argued 
that he thought it would be wrong if society differentiated between injured soldiers 
and people born with a handicap or someone who had been involved in a traffic 
accident (Vaaben, 2010). As he stated during an interview:
“I would not like to take somebody else’s place [in the queue], just because he had 
not been deployed to Afghanistan” (Vaaben, 2010).
On the other hand, the same year a fellow severely handicapped veteran argued in an 
interview that as he had fought for Denmark in Afghanistan, veterans like him were 
entitled to special treatment by the Danish authorities (Ravnø et al., 2010). Thus, as 
in the debate between Danish politicians, the debate between veterans themselves 
revolved around whether “veterans” were to be seen as a distinct societal group with 
special privileges, or whether they should be treated in the same way as any other 
Danish citizen. 
This debate by and large ended with the government’s official veterans’ policy in 
2010. After uttering the words quoted at the beginning of this article, the prime 
minister announced that an official veterans’ policy would be adopted very soon, 
and he concluded with the words, “Our veterans shall be given the necessary support 
and treatment” (Rasmussen, 2010). This was hardly a revolutionary statement, and 
when the policy was presented to the public a week later, it essentially represented 
a consolidation and comprehensive review of existing means and policies, rather 
than the breaking of new ground (FMN, 2010). The policy was named “recognition 
and support”, reflecting that these were considered to be the two main aspects of 
the issue. Among the main innovations in the policy was the establishment of a 
Veterans’ Centre with subunits in a number of major towns. This centre was to 
assist the veterans and act as a “single point of entry” – thereby addressing what 
many veterans believed to be a major problem: the public sector’s tendency to 
point to another agency when a problem related to veterans needed to be addressed. 
Another important element in the policy was that physically and mentally disabled 
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
102 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
veterans were placed on an equal footing with respect to the rules regulating their 
right to a disability pension. Funding to veterans’ self-help groups and peer-to-
peer counselling (i.e. counselling from one veteran to another) was also increased. 
In terms of recognition much had already taken place prior to the adoption of the 
policy – the annual flag day had already been established in 2009, and the national 
monument, which was inaugurated in 2011, had also been decided upon earlier. The 
most tangible addition to these measures was the introduction of a veteran’s card – 
a credit-card-sized document which attested that the person in question was a war 
veteran. However, the card in itself carried no privileges with it, and the government 
had made no initial arrangements with private companies or other non-state actors 
for providing discounts in restaurants and amusement parks, for example. When the 
first cards were issued, the Minister of Defence, Gitte Lillelund Bech, merely stated, 
“I would like to invite private companies, NGOs and public institutions to find new 
ways of recognising our veterans. It may be free bus rides on national flag day on 
5 September, a 10% discount at the auto repair shop, or free access to the town 
festival; the only limit is your own imagination, and I hope that private initiatives 
will flourish” (Bech, 2011).
In the autumn of 2016 the veterans’ policy was reviewed; without, however, any 
major changes being introduced, and without substantial popular debate (FNM, 
2016). Evidently, all the major political actors and interest groups have bought into 
the existing, rather modest policy.  
Based on the above background, one might ask why it took Denmark so long to 
adopt a veterans’ policy and why the existing policy is rather a modest one?
This is best explained by a number of historical, cultural and political factors, 
among which the virtual absence of war since 1864 is the most striking. Following 
Denmark’s increasing involvement in “hot” UN and NATO missions since the end 
of the Cold War, the notion of Danish “veterans” has resurfaced, both as a political 
factor and as a subject of study. As demonstrated in this article, virtually all groups 
of veterans prior to the 1990s have enjoyed rather limited benefits and have in many 
cases been marginalized. That Denmark suddenly adopted a veterans’ policy was 
fostered by the new missions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. These missions 
created a whole new generation of more vocal war veterans, just as the wars they 
participated in represented a new type of military engagement for Denmark.
Danish war veterans have, however, not evolved into becoming an entitlement group 
with the right to special health care or access to substantial social privileges. This 
may be explained by the existence of a strong welfare state and a relatively well-
functioning health care system. More significant is the upsurge in support for the 
veterans ranging from the large and visible public initiatives, such as the national 
monument or the flag day, to numerous private initiatives.
Conclusion
Abbreviations
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 103 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
It remains to be seen whether we are currently experiencing the peak of Denmark’s 
newfound interest in its veterans. On the one hand, one may argue that the area has 
been depoliticized, as virtually all parties are subject to the defence agreement and 
the veteran policy, which was adopted as a result of said agreement. Furthermore, 
the various veterans’ organizations have – save for a number of small and rather 
inconsequential ones– endorsed the official veterans’ policy. It may also be 
speculated that given that neither the war in Afghanistan nor the war in Iraq resulted 
in a solid victory, the Danish population and Danish politicians have increasingly 
become war-weary and there are no indications that we are going to see Danish troop 
participation in land warfare on a scale equivalent to the period between 2001 and 
2014 for years to come. Hence, in the foreseeable future, Denmark is unlikely to 
produce as many veterans as during the last decade. 
Yet, there are also signs that the veteran cause may not fully have run out of steam. 
First of all, Denmark now has a significant number of its population with “war 
veteran” written in their CVs, and this part of their identity may actually grow rather 
than fade over time. Secondly, if we look at such historical cases of severe trauma 
as concentration camp inmates and Holocaust survivors, it is known that severe 
psychological problems often only fully emerged decades after returning from the 
camps. Thus, the current number of cases of maladjusted veterans may only be the 
tip of the iceberg. In addition, since contemporary Danish culture is considerably 
influenced by American culture, American ways of honouring war veterans may be 
adopted as part of the general transfer of culture. An early example of this could be 
seen when the movie “April 9” was shown for the first time in March 2015. In a 
gesture quite uncommon to Danish movie audiences (but well known to anybody 
who has been to a spectator sport in the United States), a Danish veteran from April 
9, 1940, who was present in the auditorium, was given a standing ovation. 
Although major political adjustments to the current veterans’ policy are hardly likely 
for the foreseeable future, one may conclude that the very fact that Denmark now, 
for the first time in a century, is home to a significant number of war veterans, means 
that the last word about how to support and honour the Danish veterans has not yet 
been spoken.
MOD: Ministry of Defence 
MP: Member of Parliament  
NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
NCO: Non-Commissioned Officer 
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization 
PTSD: Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome 
UN: United Nations
Abbreviations
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010
104 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
1. Adriansen, I., 2010. Erindringssteder i Danmark. Monumenter, mindesmærker og
mødesteder. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.
2. Arkitektforeningen, 2016. https://www.arkitektforeningen.dk/konkurrence/mindesmaerke-
i-mindelunden. Accessed 15 October 2016.
3. B.dk, 2009. Politikere splittede over veteran-hjælp.Berlingske. Available at:
4. http://www.b.dk/danmark/politikere-splittede-over-veteran-hjaelp. Accessed 5 December
2016.
5. Bech, G. L., 2011. I Danmarks tjeneste. [Online] Bornholms Tidende. Available at :http://
tidende.dk/?Id=29245. Accessed 7 December 2016.
6. Burg, S. L. and Shoup, P. S., 1999.The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina: Ethnic Conflict and
International Intervention. London: Routledge.
7. FMN, 2010. Anerkendelse og Støtte. Veteranpolitik. Forsvarsministeriet. Available at:
http://www.fmn.dk/temaer/veteraner/veteranpolitik/Documents/Veteranpolitik.pdfAccessed
30 November 2016.
8. FMN 2016. Danmarks Veteranpolitik 2016. Forsvarsministeriet. Available at: http://
www.fmn.dk/temaer/veteraner/Documents/danmarks-veteranpolitik-2016.pdf. Accessed 1
October 2016.
9. Ft.dk, 2006.§ 20-spørgsmål S 6588 Om erstatningsregler for danske soldater.[Online]
Available at: http://www.ft.dk/samling/20051/spoergsmaal/S6588/index.htm. Accessed 7
December 2016.
10. Hornemann, Johanne Duus, 2009. Hærens gule sløjfer går som varmt brød. [Online]
Kristeligt Dagblad. Available at: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/danmark/
h%C3%A6rens-gule-sl%C3%B8jfer-g%C3%A5r-som-varmt-br%C3%B8d. Accessed 5
December 2016.
11. Jakobsen, P. V., 2004. ”Har Danmark et body bag syndrom?”, Militært Tidsskrift, No. 1.
12. Jørgensen, T., 2009. ”Den umulige medalje. Historien om de udekorerede veteraner fra 9.
april 1940”, Militært Tidsskrift, No. 1.
13. Kirchhoff, H. ; Lauridsen, J. T.; Aage Trommer (eds.) 2002. Gads Leksikon om Dansk
besættelsestid 1940-1945. Copenhagen: Gads Forlag, 2002.
14. Kingsey, M., 2009. V og DF. Krigsveteraner skal foran i boligkøen. [Online] Information.
dk. Available at: https://www.information.dk/indland/2009/07/v-df-krigsveteraner-foran-
boligkoeen [Accessed 5 December 2016].
15. Krarup, M., 2016. Question (No. 141) by MP Marie to the Minister of Defence, 3 May
2016. Available at http://www.ft.dk/samling/20151/almdel/FOU/spm/141/index.htm,
Accessed 15 October 2016.
16. Lundgreen-Nielsen, F., 1992. På sporet af dansk identitet. Copenhagen: Spektrum.
17. Marckmann, A., 2001. ”Sønderjyske krigsinvalider fra 1. Verdenskrig. Sociale og lægelige
aspekter”, Sønderjyske årbøger 2001, pp143-180.
18. Mosse, G., 1991. Fallen Soldiers: Reshaping the Memory of the World Wars. New York:
Oxford University Press.
19. Nielsen, H. K. 2006. Question no. S 6588 to the Defence Minister, 2006.http://www.ft.dk/
samling/20051/spoergsmaal/S6588/index.htm. Accessed 7 December 2016.
20. Pedersen, L. N., and Westh, A., 2010. Pro/Kontra: Skal sårede soldater foran i køen?.
[Online] Viden.jp.dk. Available at: http://viden.jp.dk/undervisning/sites/danskereikrig/
artikler/defysisksaarede/default.asp?cid=151014. Accessed 5 December 2016.
21. Poulsen, J., 2008, Det er på tide vi vågner. [Online] Fyens.dk. Available at:
22. http://www.fyens.dk/modules/mobile/article?articleid=972205. Accessed 5 December
2016.
23. Poulsen, N. B., 2016. ”Den danske krigsveteran i internationalt lys”. Fra Krig og Fred,
No. 1, pp. 97-125.
Bibliography
Niels Bo Poulsen, Jakob Brink Rasmussen
 105 Sodobni vojaški izzivi/Contemporary Military Challenges
24. Rasmussen, J. B., 2014. ”Danish Peacekeepers in the Republic of Serbian Krajina 
(Croatia), 1992-1995. Abridged version”. Baltic Security and Defence Review, No. 16, 1, 
pp. 70-124.
25. Rasmussen, L. L., 2010. Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussens tale ved Folketingets 
åbning tirsdag den 5. oktober 2010. [Online] Available at: http://www.stm.dk/_p_13260.
html. Accessed 28 June 2016.
26. Ravnø, L., et al., 2010. Såret soldat føler sig svigtet. [Online] TV 2. Available at: http://
nyheder.tv2.dk/article.php/id-28205010%3As. Accessed 7 December 2016. 
27. Retsinformation.dk, 1940. Lov om Udbetaling af Hædersgaver til efterladte efter faldne 
og til saarede den 9. April 1940. [Online] Available at: https://www.retsinformation.dk/
Forms/R0710.aspx?id=19498. Accessed 20 May 2016.
28. Slaegtsalbum.dk. Medaille for deltagelse i de Slesvigske Krige. [Online] Available at: 
http://www.slaegtsalbum.dk/Dannebrogsmand%20,Medaille%201864/medaille.htm. 
Accessed 7 December 2016.
29. Svendsen, 2009.”Fysisk og psykisk skadede soldater skal have særlig gode 
vilkår”, Politiken, 2009. Available at https://www.pressreader.com/denmark/
politiken/20091209/282394100549554. Accessed 28 March 2017.
30. Vaaben, L., 2010. Jeg ville ikke bryde mig om at tage pladsen for en anden. [Online] 
Kristeligt Dagblad. Available at: https://www.kristeligt-dagblad.dk/danmark/jeg-ville-
ikke-bryde-mig-om-tage-pladsen-en-anden. Accessed 7 December 2016.
31. Villiaume, P., 1995. Allieret med Forbehold – Danmark, NATO og den kolde krig. 
Copenhagen: Vandkunsten.
THE LONG ROAD TOWARDS AN OFFICIAL DANISH VETERANS’ POLICY, 1848-2010