The International Journal of

Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94:715724 doi: 10.1111/j.1745-8315.2012.00656.x

A note on the history of the Norwegian

Psychoanalytic Society from 1933 to 1945

Per Anthi* and Svein Haugsgjerd**

*Private Practice, Idrettsveien 27B, 1400 Ski, Norway anthi@online.no;
**Gaustad sykehus, University of Oslo, 0316 Oslo, Norway svein.
haugsgjerd@akersykehus.no

(Final version accepted 3 July 2012)

The Norwegian analysts, who were trained in Berlin before 1933, were drawn into
a struggle against fascism, informed by politically leftist analysts who worked at
the Berlin Institute. The Norwegian group, including the analysts Wilhelm Reich
and Otto Fenichel, were committed to Marxist or social democratic ideologies in
order to fight down fascism and Nazism. They were a source of inspiration but
also of conflict. After the war the leadership of the IPA was sceptical about the
Norwegian group because of its former connections with Die Linke, as well as its
relations with Wilhelm Reich. This paper in part considers the courageous efforts
of Nic Waal, whom Ernest Jones used as a delegate and courier to solve problems
for the IPA and who was unjustly treated after the war.

Keywords: Fenichel, IPA, Nazism, Norwegian Society, psychoanalytic history

Introduction
This paper is in part a response to Riccardo Steiners excellent and scholarly
paper published in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis on 27 June
2011 (Steiner, 2011), which has spurred us to pursue a particular line of
inquiry. Steiners paper was entitled: In all questions, my interest is not in
the individual people but in the analytic movement as a whole. It will be
hard enough here in Europe in the times to come to keep it going. After all,
we are just a handful of people who really have that in mind .... This
unusually protracted title is a quote from a letter written by Anna Freud to
A. A. Brill on 28 February 1934, in which she discusses how psychoanalysis
is able to continue to operate in countries ruled by fascist and Nazi regimes
(Freud, 1934). In his paper, Steiner states: And a few years later most of
northern Europe, particularly the Netherlands and Denmark, also became
dangerous territory for psychoanalysts because of Nazi occupation (Steiner,
2011, p. 567). This paper intends to elaborate upon Steiners statement,
examining, firstly, the formation and history of the Norwegian Psychoana-
lytic Society and, secondly, the position of Norwegian analysts under Nazi
occupation.

19331940
The Norwegian Psychoanalytic Society was first recognized as a new society
of the IPA during the Lucerne Congress in 1934 when it was called the

Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis

Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA on behalf of the Institute of Psychoanalysis
716 P. Anthi and S. Haugsgjerd

NorwegianDanish Society. Its first president was professor of psychology,

Harald Schjelderup, and its secretary was Otto Fenichel, who had come to
Oslo from Berlin in 1933 at the invitation of Norwegian analysts. The other
Norwegian members were: Ola Raknes, a scholar in English and French, Dr
Johannes Landmark, Dr Odd Havrevold, Dr Trygve Braaty, Dr Nic Hoel
(later Waal), Mrs Hjrdis Simonsen, the writer Sigurd Hoel, and Kristian
Schjelderup (Haralds brother). All except Havrevold had formal training at
the Berlin Institute between 1927 and 1933; they all participated in the Kin-
derseminar, lived in Wilmersdorf, and were affiliated with Die Linke. When
they settled in Oslo, many of them had analyses with Reich or Fenichel
(Alns, 1980; Haugsgjerd 2007; Nilsen, 2010, 2012). While Fenichel had
arrived in Oslo in the autumn of 1933, Reich arrived in 1934 after two short
stays in Copenhagen and Malm where he was declared unwanted (Reichmayr
and Mhlleitner, 1998, p. 15). The NorwegianDanish fusion was intended
to promote co-operation but the Danish influence was limited; the most
significant Danish contribution came from the Hungarian Georg Ger who
emigrated to Copenhagen in 1935.
On 30th January 1933, Hitler was appointed Reichskansler and by April
the Gleichschaltung laws were passed, requiring all professional organizations
to be judenfrei. As most of the members of the German Psychoanalytic
Society (DPG) were Jewish, a mass emigration of psychoanalysts took place,
first from Germany and later from central Europe. Consequently, in Easter
1934 the Norwegian professor of psychology, Harald Schjelderup, invited a
group of German Jewish psychoanalysts with leftist sympathies to meet in
Oslo and consider emigrating to Norway. The meeting took place at Sch-
jelderups Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo and among
those present were: Otto Fenichel, Wilhelm and Annie (Pink) Reich, George
Ger, Edith Gymri (Glck), Lotte Liebeck-Kirschner (later Bernstein),
Stefi Pedersen, Edith Jacobson, Nic Hoel, and probably Edith Gymri
(Glck). At the meeting Otto Fenichel, the leader of the leftist branch of
the IPA, gave an opening speech in which he outlined the best ways of
achieving greatest influence within the IPA. Those present at the meeting
devised a resolution against fascism and anti-Semitism to be presented at
the IPA Congress in Lucerne in August (May and Mhlleitner, 2005, p.
115). In the introduction to his Rundbriefe [circular letters], Fenichel stated
that: Those who were present at the Oslo meeting should join forces on
two main projects: saving the scientific status of psychoanalysis and champi-
oning Marxist psychoanalytic research (Fenichel, Rundbriefe, Reichmayr
and Mhlleitner, 1998, p. 17).
This crucial meeting was followed by two gatherings in July: the first in
Humlebk, Denmark, with Fenichel, Ger, Nic Hoel and Reich, then
in Prague, with Fenichel, Edith Glck, Jacobson and Annie Reich. In Oslo
in the summer of 1934, the Austrian German emigrant group of psycho-
analysts consisted of Wilhelm Reich, Otto and Hanna Fenichel, Stefi
Pedersen, Lotte Liebeck (later Bernstein) and Paul Bernstein. And several
others associated with the group settled down in Oslo, including Nina
Hackel (Hasvold, later Meyer), born in Leningrad and probably in
training analysis with Fenichel; Gunnar Leistikow, later married to

Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94 Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis

 Norwegian psychoanalytic society 19331945 717

psychoanalyst Marie Dahl Leistikow; and Norbert Ernst, Reichs assistant

(Nilsen, 2011). Also a political refugee in Oslo at the time was Willy
Brandt, future chancellor of Germany, who socialized and worked politi-
cally with the group, in particular with Wilhelm Reich (Reich, 1994,
p. 183; Sharaf, 1983, p. 264).
Gradually, the tension between Otto Fenichel and Wilhelm Reich turned
into open conflict, partly due to differences in opinion over how to present
their views at the coming Lucerne Congress in 1934, but also because of
Reichs controversial innovations in theory and technique the so-called
vegetotherapy (Jacoby, 1983). Furthermore, Reichs political network was
extensive and took political risks. For instance, Reich arranged secret visits
to Leon Trotsky who had fled Stalins terror and arrived in Norway in
1935. Reich arranged meetings with Trotsky while he was in detention in
Hnefoss, 40 kilometres outside Oslo. In 1933 he had from Berlin sent
Trotsky his book, Die Massenpsychologie des Fascismus (Nilsen, 2011).
Some months later Trotsky was expelled. He went to Mexico where he was
eventually murdered by Stalins agents. According to the recently retrieved
correspondence between Reich and Trotsky, the revolutionary found Die
Massenpsychologie des Fascismus extremely interesting.1
Fenichel wrote the first 20 Rundbriefe in Oslo. In autumn 1935, Fenichel
moved to Prague but continued to keep in touch with the Norwegian
group. Some of his Norwegian training analysands, Magli Elster (the
daughter of Raknes) and Bodil Vogt, followed him to Prague. Far less
charismatic than Reich, Fenichel failed to get the support of the other
younger candidates and analysts. Although Reich was never accepted as a
formal member of the NorwegianDanish Society, he was closely attached
to the society and had several members in analysis. In addition, he gave
clinical seminars and lectures on character analytic technique. During the
duration of his stay in Oslo there was a clear division between the
meetings at the Norwegian Psychoanalytic Society and the meetings of the
so-called Reichseminars (Fenichel, 1934, in Reichmayr and Mhlleitner,
1998, p. 289).
Raknes and Havrevold followed Reichs new therapeutic development.
While Schjelderup, Braaty and Nic Hoel supported Reichs original charac-
ter analytic technique, considering it a key contribution to psychoanalytic
methodology and technique, they dissociated themselves from Reichs new
body-oriented therapeutic approach. For several years, Reich treated Hav-
revold with excellent effect. The treatment was based on Reichs character
analytic rationale, but also on further developments in his work, including
the examination of body attitudes, motoric tensions and movements through
specific muscular techniques. Reichs character analytic vegetotherapy was
grounded in technical innovations that he developed during the treatment of
Havrevold.2 As time went by, Havrevold began to view Reich more critically;
having carried out his own bacteriological research in earlier years, Havrev-
old became critical of Reichs experimental projects in which he attempted
1
We acknowledge that there has been some debate surrounding whether Reich met Trotsky.
2
Personal communication and interview with Havrevold, September 1984.

Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94

718 P. Anthi and S. Haugsgjerd

to demonstrate the discovery and recreation of a new form of energy, which

he later elaborated and expanded, naming it orgone energy. Reich was
attacked by the medical establishment. After several heated public debates
about his controversial theories and practice, he was denied any further stay
in Norway, and in September 1939 he left for the USA to settle in New
York.

The release of Edith Jacobson

Following Edith Jacobsons arrest by the Gestapo and captivity on 24 Octo-
ber 1935, her former training analyst, Otto Fenichel, worked with an exten-
sive network of politically committed analysts to campaign for her release
from custody. From 23 November 1935 to September 1938 Fenichel wrote
15 Rundbriefe: all of them discussed questions and problems related to
Jacobsons imprisonment. Belonging to a resistance group and Leninist
organization called Neu Beginnen [New Beginning], Jacobson was accused of
high treason. Investigations had uncovered that she had two female mem-
bers of this communist organization in analysis, and one of them, Liesl Pax-
man, was arrested and committed suicide in prison. The Gestapo had
discovered that the group often met in Jacobsons apartment.
In November and December 1935, following Fenichels staunch campaign,
Ernest Jones, then president of IPA, sent the female Norwegian analyst, Nic
Hoel, on secret missions to Berlin, Prague and Vienna to assess Jacobsons
condition. In Vienna she tried to persuade Anna Freud that Jacobson was a
genuine psychoanalyst and not a political militant. In a letter dispatched
from Oslo on 4 January 1936, she wrote the following to Jones. We shall
extract and cite some relevant parts from this interesting report:
As you know I visited Vienna, Praha and Berlin. In Vienna I did see Anna
Freud. She seemed to be so well informed from you that I had not very much to do
there. She begged me to describe to Mr. Fenichel my impression of the great pres-
sure and terrorism in Berlin so that he should understand the difficulties Mr. Bo-
ehm had to meet. We also discussed the guiltiness of Edith Jacobson as she meant
that Edith had been very incautious and had put the analytical movement in danger.
She asked me also if Edith had worked politically as the accusation was not as we
did believe that she had had a political patient, but indeed that she had let her
patient and other political persons meet in her house. I told her that I was not
informed of this as I was in Berlin in November. She also meant that Edith had
been treacherous against Boehm, as she had not told him both that she had the
patients and did let them meet in her house At least one could say that her
behaviour showed naivety as well as analytical and political, but not treason
Anna Freud did say that analysis had to go before all things but I think it is a too
easy and simple formulation of it. When we now have to see in Berlin in what a ter-
rible way Boehm has to conceal so many of the scientific facts, and that they are
forced by the German government in reality, not only formally to be in accordance
with the German theories, then I think it is an illusion that they can hold analytical
science pure.
(Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society, Brecht et al., 1985, p. 129, our
italics)

Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94 Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis

 Norwegian psychoanalytic society 19331945 719

Hoels confidential missions to Berlin, Vienna, Prague and Paris were the
first concrete attempts to get Jacobson out of prison (Fenichel, 1935, in
Reichmayr and Mhlleitner, 1998; Brecht, 1988; May and Mhlleitner, 2005,
p. 160). In addition, a Norwegian group was established to try and secure
her release. On 5 June 1936, Anne Buchholtz, a refugee from Hamburg who
was attached to the Norwegian group, wrote to Ernest Jones asking him to
organize an international campaign at the IPAs London office (Brecht et
al., 1985). Citing the Norwegian poet rnulf verlands anti-fascist poem,
Dare not to sleep, this highly evocative letter was sent to a number of emi-
nent people: Jones, Brill, Bose (Calcutta), Eitington, de Monchy, Ger, Sch-
jelderup, Kramer (Riga), Bonaparte, Kannabich (Moscow), Tamm
(Sweden), Sarasin (Switzerland), Marui (Japan), Bychowsky (Warzaw),
Reich, Fenichel, Anna and Sigmund Freud (Fenichel, 1936, in Reichmayr
and Mhlleitner, 1998, p. 4312).
In 1937 Jacobson became increasingly ill. Diagnosed with gastritis and
probable hepatitis, she was transferred to a prison hospital in Breslau. In the
ensuing months her state worsened and she was diagnosed with severe reac-
tive thyroid disturbance and diabetes: her condition was assessed as life-
threatening. According to Jacobson, at that time Nazi policy was to avoid
improper deaths in prison. On the recommendation of her doctor, Jacobson
was temporary released for treatment at a general hospital in Leipzig (Schr-
ter, Mhlleitner and May, 2004). And so Jacobsons friends and politically
committed left-wing analysts began to plot her escape. In the Rundbrief on 14
March 1938, Fenichel wrote: Edith is getting better, but she is still not very
good. The recovery period in hospital will continue for a long time. During
this time a series of necessary steps will be taken (authors translation).
In March 1938, Otto Fenichel sent his Norwegian analysand, Magli
Elster, to Leipzig to arrange Jacobsons escape. On 3 April, Ola Raknes
(Magli Elsters father) travelled to Leipzig with a pledge to marry Jacobson
and thereby obtain an emigration permit for her. But the authorities denied
him the permit (May and Mhlleitner, 2005). Weeks later, around 8 May,
Jacobson was sent to Berlin for further medical treatment. Following the
treatment, instead of returning to Leipzig she took the train to Munich,
leaving a suicide note in Berlin to keep the Gestapo off her trail. Once in
Munich she was given a false passport; in highly risky circumstances, she
took a train to the German Czechoslovakian border and, helped by an old
friend, Fritz Olbrich, she managed to escape to Czechoslovakia. Nic (Hoel)
Waal was also involved when Jacobsons flight was planned and prepared.
Probably, in spring 1938 on her way to Paris, she sent an undated private
letter to her new husband Wessel Waal, attempting to explain why her
letters to him were so scanty and neutral:
Dear Wessel, My travel was due to the following: One of the best younger analysts
was arrested for having treated a communist. The communist was first imprisoned
and took her life in prison. Thereafter the analyst was put in jail and the authori-
ties tried to press her for information. But she did not yield. However, as time went
by confusion began to develop between Berlin, London and Prague about which
methods we should apply to help her as all post was censured, one person had to
travel to clear up the problems. I was the best suited and left at half-a-days notice.

Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94

720 P. Anthi and S. Haugsgjerd
The mission went well but I was strictly controlled. The carelessness of your letter
was that you wrote about my sudden journey to Berlin. To hide my real undertak-
ing, I travelled for purposes of study and should be away for three weeks ...
(Waal, 1991, pp. 1512, the authors translation)

The war years

On 9 April 1940, Germany invaded Norway. In the weeks that followed, the
Norwegian army tried to fight the occupants. The Norwegian analysts Try-
gve Braaty and Johannes Landmark participated as army doctors, and
Landmark was killed in combat on 1 May 1940. At the very start of the
occupation, Reichspsychiater, Prof. Mattias Heinrich Gring, Hermann
Grings cousin, arrived in Norway to regulate the psychoanalytical and
psychiatric profession. Fearing Nazi domination, the President of the Nor-
wegian Society, Harald Schjelderup, took the decision to dissolve the society.
Learning from the experiences of the German Psychoanalytic Society and
the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute under the National Socialist regime, Har-
ald Schjelderup decided to remove or destroy the archives and any sensitive
information. Although there was no official withdrawal from the IPA, ana-
lytic activity soon came to an end as most of the members disappeared.
Lotte Bernstein and Stefi Pedersen emigrated to Sweden in 1942. During
the first two years of the war, Harald Schjelderup organized the resistance
movement at the university in Oslo. In 1943 he was arrested by the Gestapo,
imprisoned, tortured and sent to a concentration camp. His brother Kris-
tian, the Norwegian translator of Freud, was central to the Norwegian
Church resistance; he was sent to a concentration camp the same year. The
analyst Odd Havrevold was involved in the Resistance and fled to Sweden
in 1943 (Alns, 1980, 1993).
In October 1942 all those registered as Jews in Norway were arrested and
detained. Weeks later they were shipped out on the Monte Rosa and the Do-
nau to Stettin, Poland; their destination was Auschwitz. Paul Bernstein a
member of the Norwegian Psychoanalytic Society was one of them. He
later died in Auschwitz. In November, a raid took place on Jewish women.
In a flight arranged by Nic Waal (formerly Hoel), 15 young Jewish orphans,
sent to Oslo after the annexation of Sudetenland, managed to flee to Swe-
den. The associates of the Norwegian Society, Stefi Pedersen, Lotte Bern-
stein, and Nina Hackel, all escaped in the same operation. In later years,
Stefi Pedersen became an eminent psychoanalyst in Sweden. Lotte Bernstein
became a professor in psychology at the University of Stockholm, and Nina
Hackel settled in Copenhagen as a pedagogue.
Other Jews were saved by being taken into hospitals with false identities
and medical conditions and later to escape to Sweden. One of them was
Erika Stekel (Wendelbo), Wilhelm Stekels adopted daughter, who later
became a psychoanalyst of the Norwegian Society. The chief psychiatrist of
Ullevl hospital, Haakon Sthre, was a member of the Resistance and col-
laborated closely with Norwegian analysts before and during the war. He
was arrested by the Gestapo and executed on 8 February 1945, for hiding
Jews in his psychiatric ward (Norsk biografisk leksikon, 2005). As a young

Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94 Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis

 Norwegian psychoanalytic society 19331945 721

student, the post-war psychoanalyst, Arvid Shr, fled to Scotland and

joined the Norwegian contingent of the RAF and was active as a Spitfire
pilot and squadron leader from 19431945. The experience of occupation
and resistance work had made deep impressions on Shrs generation and
many began analytic training when the war ended (Arvid Shr, Carl S.
Albretsen, personal communications).

Conclusion
Norwegian analysts were drawn into a struggle against fascism. Most of
them were trained in Berlin before 1933 and were influenced by the politically
involved leftist analysts who worked and taught at the Berlin Institute. Com-
mitted to Marxist or social democratic ideologies in order to fight fascism,
Reich, Fenichel and other immigrant analysts were a strong source of inspi-
ration. However, there were divergences and conflicts. After the war, the lead-
ership of the IPA was sceptical about the Norwegian group because of its
former connections with Die Linke as well as its close relations to Wilhelm
Reich; it became increasingly apparent that the Norwegian Society had been
excluded from the IPA during the war. The official line was that the Norwe-
gian Society had been denied membership of the IPA because of failure to
pay fees between 1940 and1945. There are no formal documents to prove this
so we will never know exactly what happened. As a result of the conflict with
the IPA, Raknes, Havrevold and other members and candidates withdrew
from the Psychoanalytic Society, along with Nic Hoel (Waal), who dedicated
herself to founding a new and comprehensive child psychiatric service called
the Nic Waals Institute. In 1953, the Norwegian Society tried to re-join the
IPA at the 18th International Psychoanalytic Congress in London, but the
application was refused. At the Business Meeting, the president of the IPA,
Heinz Hartmann, said: A group of psychoanalysts in Norway has asked to
be accepted as a Component Society. Among them are a few who do not
practise analysis, but something else a new technique (Hartmann, 1954, p.
278). The composition of the group made it impossible for the Central Exec-
utive to recommend it: Braaty strongly opposed Hartmanns assertion and
presented a short review of the history of the Norwegian Society. He empha-
sized the difficulty of breaking off cooperation with certain members for
scientific reasons in peacetime after having cooperated with them in times of
extreme external danger during the war (Braaty, 1954a, p. 278). He asked
for a clear explanation for the unreasonable exclusion of the Norwegian
group. Hartmanns response was evasive: The decision is merely postponed
until the Norwegian group reaches proper standards for membership (1954,
p. 278). The Norwegian analysts were frustrated for many years. Several
gifted candidates discontinued their training and established a new Institute
of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy, which is today a nation-wide organization
with over 400 members and nearly 100 candidates who all are well trained
clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.
Although Norwegian analysts were influenced by Reich and Fenichel, they
sought to formulate their own independent contributions to psychoanalytic

Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94

722 P. Anthi and S. Haugsgjerd

technique. Braaty (1954b) was of the opinion that the formal psychoana-
lytic technique focused too much on the patients words or lack of words.
Analysts had primarily become listeners, not observers. Braaty was analy-
sed by Fenichel, who sat in a low chair behind the coach, where he could
not see Braatys face. When asked about this, Fenichel said he was trained
so well to listen to patients that he could gauge their emotional tensions
through their words and the way they were spoken. Braaty thought that
the excessive focus on auditory impressions deprived the analyst of signifi-
cant observations of facial expressions, respiration and movements. If we
neglected the basic tool of clinical science our visual observations our
analytic practice could acquire an intellectual bias. Various forms of nonverbal
behaviour could be regarded as equivalents to free association. Psychoanaly-
sis had always been a form of vegetotherapy in Freuds sense that the
treatment will not have effect unless the affects of the psychic conflict are
mobilized (i.e. the vegetative nervous system). Besides, it might be useful to
sit at the head of the couch in such a way that one could better observe the
patients different nonverbal behaviour and investigate how these body-
based phenomena suggest significant early experiences. Specific preverbal
experiences, nonverbal expressions, or what we today call implicit and proce-
dural manifestations, could be stored and take root in a given way of behav-
ing, relating or speaking. Such specific formal behaviour expressions could
be explored by bringing the patients attention to them, enabling the patient
to associate with their actual somatic sensations and body attitudes, thus
experiencing them more concretely and tangibly. Norwegian analysts stress
the importance of observing how verbal and nonverbal communications are
expressed, assuming that the formal characteristics suggest their origin. Con-
sequently, analysis of the specific formal qualities of the verbal and nonver-
bal material will often lead to the unconscious content of a given conflict.
One may say that the integration of character analytic technique and the
classical analytical approach represents a particular trait of Norwegian psy-
choanalysis (Anthi, 1995, 2007).
Finally, at the IPA Congress in London in 1975, 30 years after the war,
the Norwegian group regained status as a component society of the IPA,
and Fiffi Piene was formally accepted as president of the Norwegian Society.

Translations of summary

Eine Anmerkung zur Geschichte der norwegischen Psychoanalytischen Gesellschaft in den

Jahren von 1933 bis 1945. Die norwegischen Analytiker, die vor 1933 in Berlin ausgebildet worden
waren, wurden in den Kampf gegen den Faschismus hineingezogen, und zwar durch die Informationen,
die sie von linksgerichteten Analytikern erhalten hatten, die am Berliner Institut arbeiteten. Die norwegi-
sche Gruppe, zu der auch die Analytiker Wilhelm Reich und Otto Fenichel gehrten, war marxistischen
oder sozialdemokratischen Weltanschauungen verpflichtet, um gegen Faschismus und Nazismus zu
kmpfen. Sie waren eine Quelle der Inspiration, aber auch des Konflikts. Nach dem Krieg war die
Leitung der IPA gegenber der norwegischen Gruppe aufgrund ihres frheren Zusammenhangs mit ,,Die
Linke sowie ihrer Verbindungen zu Wilhelm Reich skeptisch. In diesem Aufsatz werden in Teilen die
mutigen Bemhungen Nic Waals untersucht, den Ernest Jones als Delegierten und Kurier einsetzte, um
die Probleme fr die IPA zu lsen und der nach dem Krieg in unfairer Weise behandelt wurde.

Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94 Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis

 Norwegian psychoanalytic society 19331945 723
Una nota sobre la historia de la Sociedad Psicoanaltica Noruega entre 1933 y 1945. Los analis-
tas noruegos que se formaron en Berln antes de 1933 fueron arrastrados a una lucha contra el fascismo
influidos por los psicoanalistas de izquierda que trabajaban en el Instituto Psicoanaltico de Berln. El
grupo noruego, que inclua a Wilhelm Reich y Otto Fenichel, estaba comprometido con la ideologa
marxista o socialdemcrata a fin de combatir al fascismo y al nazismo. Fue fuente de inspiracin, pero
tambin de conflicto. Luego de la guerra, la directiva de la IPA tena dudas respecto al grupo noruego
por sus anteriores conexiones con Die Linke, como tambin por sus relaciones con Wilhelm Reich. Una
parte de este artculo considera los valientes esfuerzos de Nic Waal, a quien Ernest Jones utiliz como
delegado y mensajero para resolver problemas de la IPA y que fue tratado injustamente luego de la
guerra.

Une note sur lhistoire de la Societe norvegienne de psychanalyse de 1933 a` 1945. Les analys-
tes norvgiens forms  Berlin avant 1933 ont pris part  la lutte contre le fascisme sous linfluence des
analystes de gauche qui travaillaient  lInstitut de Berlin. Les analystes du groupe norvgien, y compris
Wilhelm Reich et Otto Fenichel, ont adhr aux idologies marxiste ou social-dmocrate afin de combattre
le fascisme et le nazisme. Ils furent une source dinspiration mais aussi de conflit. Apr s la guerre, la
direction de lAPI fit preuve de scepticisme envers le groupe norvgien en raison de ses prcdents liens
avec Die Linke et ses relations avec Wilhem Reich. Lauteur de cet article voque les efforts courageux de
Nic Waal dont Ernest Jones utilisa les services comme dlgu et messager pour rsoudre les probl mes
au sein de lAPI et qui fut injustement trait apr s la guerre.

Appunti sulla storia della societa` psicoanalitica norvegese dal 1933 al 1945. Gli analisti norve-
gesi formatisi a Berlino negli anni precedenti il 1933, furono coinvolti in una lotta contro il fascismo, in-
fluenzati dagli analisti di sinistra politicamente impegnati che lavoravano nellInstituto di Berlino. Il
gruppo norvegese, che comprendeva Wilhelm Reich e Otto Fenichel, promulgavano lideologia marxista e
socialista nella lotta contro il fascismo e il nazismo, costituendo una fonte di ispirazione ma anche di
conflitto. In seguito alla guerra, le autorit dell IPA diffidarono dal gruppo norvegese a causa delle sue
passate intese con Die Linke, e relazioni con Wilhelm Reich. Parte di questo lavoro considera le coraggi-
ose imprese di Nic Waal, di cui Ernest Jones si era servito come delegato e messaggero per risolvere
problemi per conto dellIPA e che fu trattato ingiustamente dopo la guerra.

References
Alns R (1980). The development of psychoanalysis in Norway. Scand Psychoanal Rev 3:55101.
Alns R (1993). Psykoanalysens historie i Norge. [The history of psychoanalysis in Norway]. In: Anthi
P, Varvin S, editors. Psykoanalysen i Norge, 1340. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Anthi P (1995). Resistance analysis and psychic reality. Psychoanal Stud Child 50:3248.
Anthi P (2007). Letter to the editor 10 01 2007: Per Anthi on Peter Fonagy and Mary Target: Char-
acter analysis and the rooting of the mind in the body. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. Online, available
from: http://japa.sagepub.com
Braaty T (1954a). Report on the 18th International Psychoanalytic Congress business meeting. Bull
Int Psychoanal Assoc 35:278.
Braaty T (1954b). Fundamentals of psychoanalytic technique. New York, NY: Wiley.
Brecht K, Friedrich V, Hermanns LM, Kaminer IJ, Juelich DH, editors (1985). Here life goes on in a
most peculiar way: Psychoanalysis before and after 1933. Hamburg: Kellner.
Brecht K (1988). Adaption and resistance: Reparation and the return of the repressed. Psychoanal
Contemp Thought 11:23347.
Freud A (1934). Letter to A. Brill, 28 February 1934. Washington, DC: Freud Archives, Library of
Congress.
Hartmann H (1954). Report on the 18th International Psychoanalytic Congress business meeting. Bull
Int Psychoanal Assoc 35:278.
Haugsgjerd S (2007). The history of the Norwegian group until 1945. Unpublished manuscript. Lec-
ture 24 April 2007, Norwegian Psychoanalytic Society.
Jacoby R (1983). The repression of psychoanalysis: Otto Fenichel and the political Freudians. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
May U, Muhlleitner E, editors (2005). Edith Jacobson. Giessen: Psychosozial.
Nilsen HF (2010). Widerstand in der Therapie und im Krieg 1933-1945. Die Psychoanalyse vor und
wahrend der Bezatzung Norwegens durch die Nationalsozialisten. In: Ash MG (2010): Psycho-
analyse unter Autoritaren und Totalitaren Regimen,Vienna: Brandes & Apsel Verlag.
Nilsen H F (2011). Sexual Politics in Norway. Wilhelm Reich und Leon Trotsky 1933-1936. In: Kuzma
M & Lafuente P (2011). Whatever happened to Sex in Scandinavia? Art and the Politics of Emanci-
pation, London & New York: Walter Konig Books.

Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94

724 P. Anthi and S. Haugsgjerd
Nilsen HF (2012). The History of the Norwegian Psychoanalytic Society. In: Loewenberg P & Thomp-
son N. 100 Years of the IPA: London & New York: Karnac Books.
Norsk biogrask leksikon (2005). Oslo: Kunnskapsforlaget.
Reich W (1933). Die Massenpsychologie des Fascismus. Kbenhavn: Sexpol Verlag.
Reich W (1934-39). Beyond psychology: Letters and journals. Higgins MB, editor. New York, NY: Far-
rar, Straus & Giroux, 1994.
Reichmayr J, Muhlleitner E, editors (1998). Otto Fenichel: 119 Rundbriefe (19341945), 2 vols.
Frankfurt a M: Stroemfeld.
Schroter M, Muhlleitner E, May U (2004). Edith Jacobson: Forty years in Germany (18971938). Ann
Psychoanal 32:199215.
Sharaf M (1983). Fury on earth: A biography of Wilhelm Reich. New York, NY: St Martins Press Marek.
Steiner R (2011). In all questions, my interest is not in the individual people but in the analytic move-
ment as a whole. It will be hard enough here in Europe in the times to come to keep it going. After
all, we are just a handful of people who really have that in mind ... Int J Psychoanal 92:50591.
Waal H (1991). Nic Waal. Det urolige hjertet [The restless heart]. Oslo: Pax.

Int J Psychoanal (2013) 94 Copyright 2013 Institute of Psychoanalysis