Ever since the liberation in 1945 there has been an ongoing struggle in the Danish society about the aftermath of the German occupation. The media, members of the resistance movement, not the least politicians and of course the historians have each given their own side, or interpretation, of the occupational events. However, compared to most other historical events, the part of the historians in this narrative seems rather marginal. This may very well be due to the fact that the occupation of Denmark, compared to other occupied nations, in many ways turned out differently. In that sense we got through the occupation with far less costs in terms of lives and with less physical devastation of properties and the infrastructure in general. All due to the collaboration which on the other hand led many to believe, that we got through the havoc of the Second World War to easily, without playing our part in the stand against the Nazi regime. It is in the light of this course of events, that every interpretation of the occupation and its aftermath much take its beginning. Thus the setting of this paper has been formed by a desire for examining how the historians have fitted in the pool of interests that have beset the history of the occupational events. More specifically, I have wanted to examine what part the historical interpretations have played in this picture. In that process I found that the historians have treated the collaboration theme with a rather point-blank approach. Considering the sensitivity that the subject still arises, it may not seem that surprisingly, but compared to the traditional notion, that the historian must treat his subject in an objective manner, the narrative of the collaboration is most straightforward in terms of the historians own positioning. For the most part the historians treat the collaboration with a basic understanding for its necessity, but most commonly the cost in terms of social distress is mentioned as well. Taking the circumstances into consideration, the final verdict is however, that there were no real alternative. More specifically it seems that since the mid 1980s the purpose of the historical interpretation of the collaboration has been that of varying the current notion of the events. At first it applied to the widespread consensus narrative, which presented the Danish nation as being united in resistance. This narrative was for the most part designed by the politicians responsible for the collaboration. Recently the reckoning has been somewhat different since the historians, to a higher extent, seems to point their finger at what they see as an unjustly ruling about the collaboration. This narrative of the collaboration as being immoral has been outlined in the media, and more recently by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The dismissal of this point of view seems to be the cornerstone in many recent historical accounts. These conclusions are solely based on the analyses of fourteen primary works on the subject of the collaboration. Therefore I cannot claim to illustrate the historical account in full, but the notion seems so widespread in recent historical works that it is clear, that it is more than just a tendency. In that way recent historical works on the subject seems to be lead by a desire to make up for what is accounted for as others wrongdoings in terms of unjustly misinterpretations on the narrative of the collaboration. The historical account of the collaboration at least within recent years, have in general been founded in the light of this notion and it is on the basis of that, that the writings of the historians must be understood.