Collaboration vs. Resistance

In history we've been speaking about the reasons for collaboration or resistance. There are many forms of resistance, non-violent or violent, but which is the most effective? I believe that it depends on the situation. The Nazis held Nordic people highest, followed by gallic people, and then slavic as the lowest. If I were to resist the Nazis I would, as a nordic person, choose passive resistance because the Nazis treated Nordics well. The Nazis allowed the Danes to basically remain autonomous and there was no open violence, but the Danes did smuggle Jews to Sweden to avoid deportation. Yugoslavia is another story, the slavic people were persecuted endlessly by the Nazis and thus passive resistance wouldn't be effective so I would, in this situation, choose violent attacks against Nazi supply lines. Gallic were treated pretty well (considering the situation) , but they were also seen as inferior. The type of resistance that would be most effective depends on many factors, geography, population, personality, and many more. If in a large city with unknown strangers all around I wouldn't be able to passively resist effectively because of the fear that a neighbor is a spy, but in rural areas with small populations everybody knows everybody so it is easier to resist, passively or actively. There isn't a general type of resistance towards the Nazis that was best because many efforts, passive or active, succeeded. Depending on many factors either one could be the best for a certain situation, but all that really matters is that you're resisting oppression.