Jump to content

Talk:German occupation of Norway/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

British and French "invasion?"

I tried to find sources that confirmed that there was a British and French invasion underway prior to Weserübung. I have found there was a disinformation campaign to that effect; and certainly British and French troops arrived to repel the invasion once it got started. --Leifern 20:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It was both a disinformation campaing - as the Germans surely wanted to be in the best possible light, but there is loads of evidence of that the Allied forces had various plans and were on the verge of executing them when Nazi-Germany acted first. Dont want to spend the money on Britannica, but as you can see of the beginning of the article its quite clear on it. The Swedish book is rather good, two historians that wrote it based on all currently available facts, can be ordered from bokus.com - possibly also from Amazon. Ulflarsen 21:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

British/French plans of invading Norway

It is quite a lot of data proving that the Allies were on their way to invade Norway, one link here from the Churchill memorial web site is a start:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=681

-also the beginning of an article from Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=53539

There is an excellent Swedish book about the invasion that also discuss this in detail,

"Den nionde april : Nazitysklands invasion av Norge 1940", av Tamelander, Michael, Zetterling, Niklas Pocket. Historiska Media, Sverige, 2005 (ISBN 9185057959).

Will add the references to the article as well. Ulflarsen 21:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, not actually invasion plans

The publicly available sources like winstonchurchill.org present the matter of an impending invasion a slightly too simple. It`s not as if British and French troops had landed in Norway, had Hitler not been the faster one to get there. During the War Cabinet meetings on the Finnish Winter War the mainly the French, having Axis forces on their doorstep, suggested an Expeditionary Force to be sent to Finnland to support the fightings there. The British, struggling to scratch together what forces they could, refused to waste valuable troops on that matter. But Churchill proposed a useful side-benefit of such an operation: Would one be be able to obtain Swedish concession to use the Ironore-Railroad from Narvik to Luleå as the most obvious staging way for a relieve force sent to help the swedish neighbours, could one be able to also block the iron ore exports coming via precisely this railroad. While an Expeditionary Force was assembled british diplomats tried to recieve a Swedish OK on that matter but were unable to recieve any, since Sweden valued it`s neutrality on the ground of being in an uncomfortable strategic situation, until it was too late to help Finnland. Although the main body of the Expeditionary Force was dissolved, a scratch force of Free Poles, French and some light British infantry was left in Scotland. This was due to Churchill not having abandoned all hope alltogether. In the days prior to WESERÜBUNG mining efforts on the Norwegian coast were started to see, if Germany could be be lured into an ill-prepared invasion of Norway, which could then be countered while pretending humble motivations for this breach of neutrality. But, unbeknownst to the British, this invasion was well underway and the ships sent out to mine Norwegian coastal waters met with the upcoming German invasion (hence DD Glowworm vs. BC Scharnhorst).

For a more complete synopsis of that matter see: SKODVIN, Magne: Skandinavien in der westalliierten militärischen Planung, in: Bohn, Robert / Elvert, Jürgen / Rebas, Hain / Salewski, Michael (Hrsg.): Neutralität und totalitäre Aggression. Nordeuropa und die Großmächte im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Stuttgart, 1991. The article and the book are one of the standards on the topic of WESERÜBUNG, for a good and thorough summing up of all that see: OTTMER, Hans – Martin: „Weserübung“. Der deutsche Angriff auf Dänemark und Norwegen im April 1940, München, 1994.

Marco Nase, Greifswald 141.53.194.251 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Check list

Here is a check list for how we make an NPOV title which describes the facts and does not add POVs to it.

  • Which country was the occupying power?
    • Germany

Which country was occupied?

Frankly I dont see the huge problem in naming the article Nazi occupation of Norway, and neither do I see the logical connection to renaming other occupation regimes. For most Norwegians they considered the occupation "Nazi". One could of course include both, changing the name to the "Nazi Germany occupation of Norway".
By "Googling" on the exact two phrases I find that "Nazi" gets 3.930, while "German" gets 1.480. Not that it would be the final judgde, but it gives at least a hint that the current name "Nazi occupation of Norway" is not way out. Ulflarsen 18:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
We don't determine NPOV and historical accuracy by searching all the trash in Google. We could very well find that Ariel Sharon is more frequently referred to as "war criminal" than "prime minister", should then "war criminal" be his primary title in Wikipedia?
For most Norwegians, it was a German occupation. "Nazi occupation" is only used in propaganda by some groups. Courage 20:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
As far as I know most Norwegians saw it as a Nazi occupation. Ulflarsen 05:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:German military occupation of Norway during World War II Redirect

Why was this moved, without even a discussion. It is, in fact, more accurate to refer to it as a Nazi occupation, for several reasons: 1) the Quisling regime was Nazi, not German; 2) there were Austrian soldiers in the occupying force; and 3) the Nazi regime was illegal even in Germany. I don't understand why this makes it more NPOV and will revert unless I get a satisfactory answer.

The German military occupation and the Quisling government are two separate things. The Quisling government may be described in the article about the Quisling government. "Nazi occupation" is completely unencyclopedic. There has never existed a state called "Nazi". The fact that the National Socialist party were in government positition does not justify your title. We don't refer to the occupation of Iraq as the "neo-con occupation" or "republican occupation", and we don't refer to the Israeli occupation of Palestine as the "Zionist occupation". The PLO does, however, and in the same way does some people refer to a German occupation as a "Nazi" occupation. The reason for why Wikipedia cannot do the same is explained at Wikipedia:NPOV. 2) Austrian soldiers = German soldiers at the time as Austria was a part of Germany and not a souvereign state. Austria could not possibly occupy Norway per se, but constituted part of the German state that did.
Two questions: (1) To what extent was the German National Socialists Workers Party involved in the (a) invasion (b) occupation of Norway; (2) Admiral Raeder (as Nuremberg established) was responsible for both planning and implementation of the invsion; was Admiral Raeder ever a member of the Nazi Party? Nobs 00:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
What is the relevance of your questions? Two questions: Is Ariel Sharon a member of the Likud party? Does the Likud party occupy Palestine?
By the same standard then the proper reference should be Likud occupation of Palestine and not Isreali occupation of Palestine. Nobs 01:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. That is my point. //83

The Nazi regime in Germany was illegal in every conceivable sense; it was not democratically elected, it did not stay in power the democratic means; and it violated every treaty it had ever made with other states. And to top it all off, the party specifically equated itself with Germany in every way. Neither the Likud party nor the Republican party, nor for that matter the neo-cons who advised Bush, obtained or hold on to power in that way. For better or worse, there is nobody who is questioning the legitimacy of these governments in their countries; the Nazi regime in Germany, Austria, and Norway had absolutely no national legitimacy in these countries. The best comparison would probably be the Taliban - we don't blame the Afghan goverment for blowing up the statues of Buddha; we blame the Taliban. --Leifern 02:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect that we are going to accept that you try to enforce your POV here? It may be your private opinion that the German government was "illegal", just like it may be my private opinion that the Bush government is illegal (he wasn't actually elected, was he?) or the Sharon government simply because it is outright criminal, but such POVs have nothing in Wikipedia to do.

Also, whether the German government was legal or not must be considered in accordance with German constitutional law, not whether it respected treaties etc. That is irrelevant. Lots of countries ignore treates and international law (most prominently: Israel and the USA). And the vast majority of countries both in Europe and in the world were dictatorships in the 30s and 40s.

It may be the case that in National Socialist propaganda the National Socialist party represented the best of the Germans, but still, the National Socialist party and the German state were two different things. If you equate them, you are spreading National Socialist propaganda. Are you a National Socialist?

I suggest this page go for arbitration. I believe that Nazi Germany occupation could be the middle, that would take in BOTH Nazi and Germany. But anyhow it was the Nazi rule that made Germany invade Norway and so it makes sense to mention it in the heading. Ulflarsen 05:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
This is only speculations; the invasion was for military and strategical reasons and had nothing with the National Socialists per se to do. If Germany was in war with Britain, it may well had considered taking control over Norway in the same situation with a different leadership. "Nazi" has nothing in the title to do, Germany was not called "Nazi Germany", that name is discussed here. If we use "Nazi Germany", we must also use "Zionist Israel" or "Likud Israel", thus insinuate that the actual government of the country is not really the "legal" government and does as such not actually represent that country (but rather the party, Zionists, Likud, National Socialists etc.). For the most part, only left-wing German apologists who claim "Germany" has nothing to do with world war II insist on "Nazi Germany".
You wrote "This is only speculations; the invasion was for military and strategical reasons and had nothing with the National Socialists per se to do." Interesting statement, to say the least. Most historians will agree I believe in that is was the aggressive Nazi party that made Germany attack other countries. That the Wehrmacht had to obey was often another question. For most Norwegians it was the Nazi regime that were the perpetrators and so it makes sense to include it in the name of the article. But one could, as I have said iearlier - change it to "Nazi Germany". The excellent Swedish book I have posted as a reference also use Nazi Germany. Ulflarsen 17:53, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Illegal reverts

This page doesn't exist. Please talk page at Nazi occupation of Norway for discussion. --Leifern 14:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly this page exist. We should however merge the two talk pages when this issue is settled. //83

Continuous illegal reversions

To the anonymous "editor" who keeps reverting these pages and is accusing me of violating NPOV:

  • The issue of the title for this article has been put to a vote
  • It is a clear violation of WP policy to delete a vfd tag; you are being blocked for it, and attempt to obtain a new IP address amounts to willful vandalism
  • In the meantime, the existing title holds. If the vote decides that German military occupation of Norway during World War II is the right title, I will abide by it.
  • In the meantime cease and desist from your childish behavior

--Leifern 14:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, Leifern. I'm clearly not going to accept the outrageous violations of NPOV by the Jewish lobby voting against NPOV. Get yourself a new website to push your POV. Your edits are bordering on vandalism, and you are removing links to relevant talk pages.

If it is "decided" to let this page stay under this POV title, I will move all American and Israel occupations etc. to the same kind of titles. Wikipedia must have one standard for all countries.

I would suggest that you rethink your attitude. Please sign your discussion entries with ~~~~, read Wikipedia:Wikiquette, do not threaten to do this or that, and regarding the "jewish lobby" you may want to read the article on conspiracy theory. -- 790 19:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
As for the title of the page I believe it is good arguments to call it "Nazi occupation", witness the book reference I added yesterday with two acclaimed Swedish historians, naming their book as follows:
"Den nionde april: Nazitysklands invasion av Norge 1940"
In translation that says: April 9th; Nazi Germany's invasion of Norway 1940
When it comes to actually handling the disagreement there is an official guideline which all parties should try their best to follow. I suggest for a start that one presents the arguments here and involves a third party if it can not be solved. Ulflarsen 18:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

this page need admin help with its move

The move to German military occupation of Norway during World War II needs to be done properly. We'll need admin help for that. Sam Spade 15:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue is under vote. Please remove the tag, as it hasn't been decided whether to move. --Leifern 15:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
First you'll need to get agreement on a move. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

New title proposal

Would you be satisfied if we used the model of Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005 and wrote something like:

The post-invasion period in Norway followed the 1940 invasion of Norway by a multinational coalition led by Germany, which overthrew the Socialist government of Nygaardsvold. This article covers the period starting ...

Then your beloved Austrians will be included too. There should be one standard for both Germany and the USA, not separate standards. Either the article dealing with the occupation of Iraq or this article needs to be modified.

I would suggest again that you rethink your attitude. Please sign your discussion entries with ~~~~, read Wikipedia:Wikiquette, do not threaten to do this or that, avoid getting personal, and regarding the "jewish lobby" you may want to read the article on conspiracy theory. -- 790 19:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This comment is cut & pasted from Talk:Polish_government_in_exile and similar at Talk:Allies and explains my understanding how terms like Nazi occupation (1) came into existence (2) have remained common currency. (Further example at William Dodd (ambassador), American Ambassador to Weimar Germany 1934-1938, yet the insistance on referring to the pre-War period as "Nazi Germany). T

Often we are stuck with terms newspaper headline writers used from the time (FDR, Big 3, London Poles etc) to communicate ideas that won't fit on a headline, Like "Ike" instead of "Eisenhower" or "Free French" instead of "French National Committee". It takes up less space. Even "Nazi" was easier to use & print than "Weimar Republic" or "Germany".

Nobs 16:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Parsing the issue

Let's parse this issue: First, German vs. Nazi occupation. Some of the facts are:

  • Yes, it was the government of Germany that ordered the invasion and German citizens who implemented it.
  • But, there can be no question that it was the Nazi ideology that promoted it, the Nazi totalitarian hold on German society that enabled it, and the Nazi doctrine of brutal subjugation, murder, etc., that characterized it.
  • I think I'm pretty solid ground in saying that the Nazi regime in Germany was illegitimate and illegal
  • A long-winded but painfully accurate title would take both into account; if I had to choose, I'd go with Nazi
  • Norwegian usage usually refers to "Germans" rather than "Nazis," and I think it is accurate to say that this refers to the presence of German soldiers. Most commonly, they'll say "during the war," though, and there is no doubt that Nazism was at the root of the problems.

Second, "military occupation" vs. "occupation"

  • I can think of no example of an occupation that didn't involve the military, so adding the qualifier "military" is unnecessary
  • This particular occupation was total, in the sense that the Nazis took over all aspects of Norwegian society. Terboven didn't even have command authority of the military in Norway, and it was pretty clear that the means of controlling Norwegian society was through the so-called Security Police rather than the Wehrmacht.
  • "Military occupation" may lead some readers to believe that this was the mere presence of military powers in Norway, while civilian administration remained in legitimate Norwegian hands. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course.

The final argument was that the issue was put to a vote, and there was a clear majority for characterizing it as "Nazi occupation of Norway."

(Also, I'd be interested in knowing why Courage thinks that "Nazi occupation of Norway" is indicative of a "Jewish" point of view."

--Leifern 10:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Question to Leifern: in this statement: "...government of Germany that ordered the invasion and German citizens who implemented it", can you qualify further your meaning of "German citizen", in other words are you making the assumption that a person born in a certain territory under a certain politcal regime is by virtue of their birth in that territory, automatically a "citizen" of the land of their birth. Thank you. Nobs 16:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to make that assumption. Hitler, for one, was born near Linz in Austria. I don't know at what point he acquired German citizenship (for all I know, never), but he certainly passed himself off as German. Without trying to make too much out of this, you could argue that people who acquired German citizenship under "laws" instituted by the Nazis, had invalid citizenships (certainly Jews and others who had their citizenships rescinded by the Nazis had them reinstated after the war), but I was simply trying to make an argument. --Leifern 18:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Leifern's argument does not make sense. It is well known that Germany invaded Norway for military and strategical reason, just like the British planned to invade our country, and actually because of that. The Germans didn't want to overthrow the Norwegian government, they wanted only military control. Their plan for the invasion is well known, and it was intended as the occupation of Denmark, where the social democrat government remained in power. They had even prepared how their military should parade and play for the Norwegian King and government after they entered the country. The invasion had nothing to do with national socialism, but rather military tactics, as Germany was in war with Britain. It could well have invaded Norway with a different government too. If we are going to accept "Nazi occupation", we must also accept "Communist occupation", "Stalinist occupation" or "Zionist occupation" (and in case of a British occupation, "Imperialist occupation", and for American occupations: "Republican occupation" or "neo-conservative occupation"). This is all very unencyclopedic. And to maintain neutrality, we need to use the same standard for all countries. Courage 16:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Courage, there's a "no original research" policy at Wikipedia. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about this and other matters (such as the notion that Jews in Auschwitz weren't murdered), but your conception of the war years in Norway is original at best. At a minimum, you should provide documentation for this assertion and note that it is a minority view. It seems to me that you are reducing the reasons for the invasion and occupation; and then only focusing on the intent and not the actual effect of it. I don't think you'd find a single living Norwegian with a living memory of the occupation who would agree with you that it was "only" military. The comparison between the US occupation of Iraq, and Israeli administration of the West Bank and Gaza does not hold, for reasons we've explained. I would be fine characterizing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan as "communist," but you'll have to take that up with the editors who are working on the relevant articles. --Leifern 17:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Leifern, there's a "no original research" policy at Wikipedia, I suggest you read it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about this and other matters, but your conception of the war years in Norway is original at best. I'm referring historical facts which no serious Norwegian historian dispute, and which you would be aware of if you had too read mainstream Norwegian newspapers like Aftenposten or listened to state broadcasting (NRK). And I cannot image you would find a single serious Norwegian historian which claims it was not Germany which occupied Norway!
You are making a strawman here - I have never claimed that Germany didn't occupy Norway. --Leifern 19:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
You are claiming that "Nazism" instead of Germany occupied Norway. What else are you claiming? Courage 19:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Please read my reasoning above. It's been repeated many many times, and at this point it's your problem that you either won't read or can't comprehend. --Leifern 19:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Which reasoning? My source for what I mentioned above is Prof. Øystein Sørensen, the NRK (P2) had a programme about it recently. Courage 19:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The first few paragraphs in this very section. And what did Sørensen actually say? --Leifern 19:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
What I said above about how the occupation was intended (like the Danish one), however this is well known and you may read it in any standard work about the occupation. More interesting, he told about how the German military was to play for the King. According to Sørensen, the reason that the occupation of Norway turned out different than the Danish is the resistance of the Norwegian government, which was only possible because Blücher sunk and Oslo was not taken immediately. Courage 19:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
As for the Jews in Auschwitz, please stop lying. I changed "murdered" to "killed" because "murdered" is POV (in the sense that it is a loaded word), while "killed" is merely factual. I still recommend you reading the Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Courage 19:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
"Murder" means unlawful, deliberate killing of people. "Murder" is accurate - if you can prove that the deaths of Jews in Auschwitz was anything but illegal and deliberate, we can discuss replacing the term with "killing." I believe that my view of the war years in Norway is entirely consistent with overwhelming consensus of historians across the entire political spectrum. If you have specific objections, please, let them be known. --Leifern 19:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, it means "unlawful". But seriously, against which laws at the time? Speaking of laws doesn't make sense. Wikipedia cannot make such a moral judgement, and should use words which describes the facts and not the personal position of the author (Leifern). Courage 19:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
We can't pass moral judgment on genocide? Give me a break. In any event, "murder" is a legal term, and those involved in killing Jews were convicted of murder, in Germany, Poland, or whatever country in which the murders took place. With your rationale, the word "murder" should never appear in wikipedia. --Leifern 19:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the word "murder" is removed by a bunch of Wikipedians with this rationale. When Palestinian school girls are murdered by the IDF, our Israeli lobby will always change "murdered" into something more neutral. Courage 19:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Give me a few examples. And if you feel this way, I think you should do a bold edit on articles on Holocaust, Auschwitz, Yad Vashem, etc. Also, note that it has to be "deliberate." If there is a case when an Israeli soldier deliberately killed a Palestinian school girl, I have no problems referring to it as a murder. --Leifern 19:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Sigh. Why is it that POV-pushers always feel the need to insinuate Zionist conspiracy theories and inject highly biased views of Israeli-Palestinian politics into unrelated discussions? Jayjg (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I think the historic record clearly shows a "systematic murder" of non-combatants. Nobs 20:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda rationale for invading Norway

Is from Aschehougs Norgeshistorie, volume 11, p. 73. It can be found in any number of other authoritative works on the topic. --Leifern 00:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Unilateral moves of page

Please stop unilaterally moving this page without consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, please stop unilaterally moving this page without consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you. Courage 20:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The article started at Nazi occupation of Norway, and you have now attempted to unilaterally move it to at least a half dozen other article names, knowing all the while that a vote on a permanent new name was going on at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/German_military_occupation_of_Norway_during_World_War_II#Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany. This is a display of outrageous bad faith on your part; please participate in the vote, rather than trying to impose your will on many other editors. Jayjg (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
If someone wants to voice their opinion on the title, it should be done here at the talk page, not at an abandoned VfD page for a different, now deleted, article. Courage 20:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, it must feel really wonderful for you when you try to set the rules, but the vote on the new name is still going on over there. I encourage you to participate, because it looks like it is rapidly coming to a conclusion. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I see no conclusion at the talk page of the article, and I'm certainly not going to respect the outcome of a vote where half of the participants are obviously biased Jewish POV pushers with no real interest in the article anyway. We need one central policy for all countries, and currently, there seems to be an agreement not to use titles like "stalinist occupation", "zionist occupation" etc. Hence, the use of "Nazi occupation" is equally inappropriate. Courage 21:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Courage - what's with the terminology

Courage - I've noticed that what sets you off every time is any mention of the term "Nazi." You avoid using it yourself, preferring instead "National Socialist," and making everything out to be German. I'm struggling to make sense of it - would you care to explain? --Leifern 23:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I avoid the word "Nazi" because it is a colloquialism, the proper term is National Socialism, and I believe an encyclopedia should use the proper terms, not colloquialisms. I also believe an encyclopedia shall be factually correct, and not use incorrect (propaganda) titles like "Stalinist occupation" when the correct title would be Soviet occupation etc. Courage 04:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello Courage, at least the last sentence you changed doesn't make sense, and why do you mark this edit as "minor" and "typo", besides for the purpose of letting it slip by un-reviewed?? -- 790 08:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I mark my typo edits as typos because they are typos. And I really have no need to discuss with vandals, so goodbye. Courage 08:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I don't care if you call the Norwegian Nazis Fascists. But this was not a typo, you changed the content and masked it as a typo edit. It was not minor either. Your own reaction proves it is about content. And oh, great, now you changed the sentence back to The occupation May 10, 1945. This sentence no verb, get it? I have to agree with you when you say I mark my typo edits as typos because they are typos. They are, indeed. And goodbye yourself.-- 790 07:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Tags and "Nazi"

Since nobody has explained what precisely makes this article biased or inaccurate, I'm removing the tags. And since there can be no question that the Quisling regime was a Nazi regime, I've changed the term "fascist" to "Nazi." If someone has an issue with the term "Nazi," he/she should take it up on the article Nazi. In the meantime, this article will go with prevailing consensus in Wikipedia on terminology. --Leifern 02:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

NS was probably more of a fascist than a nazi party, altough I agree that it's fine to label it "Nazi" during the war years (the Nazi elements of NS probably did not exist at its founding, but was evident after 1940). --Cybbe 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Unless we are willing to adopt a strictly formal interpretation of the term "fascist" (surely one of the most overused and worn-out terms in political jargon) and justify its use for NS, I'd prefer to go with what the practical meaning was, which was that Germany was ruled by a Nazi regime. I think the extent to which the Quisling regime had any real power is something politicians are grappling with, but I think that's covered ok in this article, at least for now. --Leifern 19:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem describing the regime ruling Norway during the war years for Nazi, Terboven was in control, not Quisling. And NS during the war years could arguably be labeled nazi, although someone might object to that. What could be problematic is constantly refering to it as the Nazi Party of Norway, as I dont believe it had any formal ties to NSDAP (and at least not initially). I'm not sure wheter it is 100% correct to use "Norwegian Nazi" for NS, but it might be the best option given this context. --Cybbe 19:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Continued unjustified edits

Courage keeps editing this article and slapping on tags without explaining what his objections are, beyond accusing me and other editors of being Jewish. If he has objections to the article as it stands, I insist that he details them rather than simply making edits that otherwise make no sense. --Leifern 12:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Obviously he takes objection to calling the Norwegian Hitler-allies "Nazis" while he seems to be happy with calling them Fascists. While I understand that there are more or less subtle differences between fascism and nazism, IMHO it really does not matter in this context. I would not care if user:Courage would stop reverting to mis-spelled versions and show a minimum of Wikiquette. -- 790
BTW I do not discuss with Nazi ***s who object to calling the Holocaust murder. -- 790 08:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed name change (moved from closed VfD page)

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German military occupation of Norway during World War II

Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

Rationale

  1. Nazi Germany is a well-known and unbiased name for the period that Germany was ruled by the dictator Adolf Hitler, also known as the Third Reich.
  2. Including Nazi Germany gives a similar temporal specificity as "during the Second World War" (WWII).
  3. It includes both the word Nazi and Germany, which each side demanded.
  4. The title combines the unbiasedness and specificity of both proposals.

I would appreciate if the participants to this discussion will consider my proposal. gidonb 13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The country was not called "Nazi Germany". This awkward term is only used by some Germans who claim "Germany" had nothing to do with WWII. It is an ahistorical apologist title, which is completely inappropriate in formal uses. It suggests that the German government of the time was not actually the "real" German government. We shouldn't use this title for the same reason that we shouldn't use "Republican US", "Bush USA", or "Likud Israel". Courage 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that Nazi Germany never was the name of Germany. However, the names 'Third Reich' and 'Nazi Germany' are widely accepted names for the temporal phase of Germany (then officially Deutsche Reich) during which Hitler was its ruler. Nazi Germany is wider accepted in English, yet neither was an official name. In German the term Third Reich is more commonly used. See also the article Nazi Germany and its talk page. A hardly used term is the 'Thousand Year Reich'. To overcome the trap that someone may think that Nazi Germany was not Germany, I believe it is good practice to use the names interchangeably in the text of articles on this era (that is Germany for Nazi Germany; not the other way around). In the title, however, the specificity of Nazi Germany can add to a better identification of the article's content. I do not see what Israel or the US have to do with this issue. gidonb 21:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Courage, I do not see a real point in discussing with you when you do obviously not even care to read your opponents' statements, and either ignore them or claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually say (see our exchange above).
Just for the record: The claims you are making above are totally out of line with what everyone else seems to think. Not only is Nazi Germany, as Gidonb has pointed out, a perfectly common name throughout the English-speaking world, the conventions of which we should follow here. To my knowledge, no one has ever implied that the Nazis were not "real" Germans or that the term "Nazi Germany" was apologetic. This remains your own, highly idiosyncratic interpretation.
As for "Likud Israel": Israel is a liberal democracy in which the Likud was elected to govern, based on parliamentary support and within the constraints of a coalition, for a constitutionally determined duration. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was a totalitarian state shaped by Nazi ideology. Not only were there no functioning democratic procedures to change the governement again or to articulate dissent; dissent itself was forbidden on pain of death. Similar can be said of the U.S. I repeatedly explained the difference; your consistent refusal to consider this gives me an idea that you are not really seeking to discuss the German occupation of Norway at all: Is it possible that you are really just looking for a venue to criticise Bush and Sharon? If so, rest assured that the title of this article is not the most effective choice. --Thorsten1 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes

I AGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany
Actually, I think the insistence on German military occupation was intended to have the opposite effect: to depict a version of history that makes the occupation seem like a conventional, neighborly occupation that was justified by British aggression. The person who proposed this title accused me of "Jewish propaganda," though it isn't clear to me how religion enters into this discussion. --Leifern 18:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I am always puzzled how people will relate anything to American, Jewish or Israeli people, organizations or features. Why not just discuss topics "as is"? This may be one of the very few points shared by the far left and right. gidonb 18:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
I DISAGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Conclusion

I am glad that the name "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany" enjoyed a consensus and that we now can put this dispute behind us. Upon the execution of the name change, I have made some changes in the two opening paragraphs in order to make these better correspond with the new name. Subsequent edits are always desirable. Please let us discuss any remaining issues of POV, if at all, in a cooperative manner so that we can ensure that this important article will live up to the quality and neutrality expectations of its potential readers. gidonb 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Lost in translation?

What does the following line, from the article, mean? "Norway, above all, did not want to be in war with Great Britain." Does it mean Norway didn't want to be at war with Britain, in a war alongside Britain, or in any war in which Britain was involved regardless of which side it was on? 172.200.64.80 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Norway during World War II

Why don't use the name "Norway during World War II", as it is called in Bokmål, nynorsk and Swedish language. They are called nn:Noreg under andre verdskrigen (nynorsk), no:Norge under andre verdenskrig (bokmål) and sv:Norge under andra världskriget (Swedish).

User:J 1982 22:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We wanted to specify that Norway was occupied by Germany. Nazi German occupation also implies WWII. There has been a quite massive yet anonymous vote about this, which is extremely rare at the English language Wikipedia. See the CfD linked at the top of this page. There are often name differences between different Wikipedias. Regards, gidonb 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Title

We say that Iraq is occupied by the United States, not the Occupation of Iraq by Republican United States. There has only been one German occupation of Norway to my knowledge so there is no need to specify the government that lead Germany during these times in the title. --A Sunshade Lust 18:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Iraq was briefly occupied by the Coalition powers, not just the U.S.A. Nor has the U.S.A. at any time been "Republican" - there is always a mixture of the two main parties in the American congress. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

German POW's

I added the section about the Norwegians forcing German POW's to clear mines, killing 275 of them in the process. Unfortunately I could not find any English speaking source covering the topic. What I did find were a number of Norwegian newspapers, such as this one, reporting essentialy the same thing. Tyske soldater brukt som mineryddere. The main source used by all is the research by professor emeritus Anders Chr. Gokstad, who has written a book covering the topic "Men seier'n var vår", and has made a TV documentary "Hverdagsliv i krigsårene" --Stor stark7 Talk 03:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing section: burning of Finnmark and eastern Troms

I hope someone can write a section, or even an entire article, about the burning of almost all houses in Finnamrk and Troms, the evacuation, and the implications of this for the people in these areas.Labongo 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How did it end?

This article does not document how the occupation ended. Did the Germans pull out peacefully? Were there any hostilities? How exactly did the main German army leave Norway? And when? If anyone could actually expand the article on this issue, it would be greatly appreciated. --m3taphysical (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers wanted

What was the size of the armed forces of Norway at the time of the German invasion? How were they organized? What was the size and organization of the German invasion forces and later the occupation forces? patsw (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The "German invasion" section already has answers to some of your questions.

The first wave of German attackers counted only about ten thousand men, but Germany's luck in achieving complete surprise, and the unpreparedness of Norway for a large-scale invasion of this kind, gave the German forces their initial success.

Allied troops began to land at Narvik on April 14. Shortly afterward, British troops were landed also at Namsos and at Åndalsnes, to attack Trondheim from the north and from the south, respectively. The Germans, however, landed fresh troops in the rear of the British at Namsos and advanced up the Gudbrandsdal from Oslo against the force at Åndalsnes. By this time the Germans had about 25,000 troops in Norway.

Hitler garrisoned Norway with about 300,000 troops for the rest of the war.

Cheers, --m3taphysical (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Spy contributed to UK defeat in 1940

A BBC article discusses a spy story relevant to Norway in WWII: [1]. Perhaps someone will want to contribute to the article from this source (or not). I am no expert in the matter. David Hollman (Talk) 12:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

NORTRASHIP . No mention ?

Why is there no mention of Nortraship in this article. The Norwegian merchant marine played a vital role in the war and I would think that it would be regarded as part of the resistance movement ? I know it has it's own article, but maybe someone can link to it here too ? Mortyman (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Name

Why is there need to qualify the name of this article at all? There are no other pages about occupations of Norway. Also, the name of this page does not conform with almost every other non WW2 occupation page I can find. Moreover, are we to believe that it is necessary to find every instance of the word "Germany" in every article on WW2 so that we might replace it with "Nazi Germany?" I propose that the name be changed to "Occupation of Norway." Saji Loupgarou (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Norway has been occupied and/or administered by a foreign power many times before (e.g. by Denmark and Sweden). Thus I guess it is fairly justified to specify in the title what occupation the article refers to. However I wonder if "occupation" really is the right term at all. I have a feeling that most other articles have a title along the lines of "Country X during World War II" (e.g. Sweden during World War II). The thing is, many articles deal specifically with the period that a country was occupied (which may have been brief or long) while others deal with the whole 1939-1945 period. Which leads to a whole myriad of different titles. Tricky issue. --m3taphysical (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
See Template:WWII history by nation as a reference. --m3taphysical (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you'll scroll back, you'll see that a consensus was already reached on this matter. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read the whole discussion. But conformity matters more than consensus. There is always room for change. Anyway, if this page were to be flooded by POV editors (not saying that it is) the "consensus" would likely be unacceptable. I agree that it is a tricky issue. I think the way the Occupation of Poland article has dealt with its name might be appropriate here... though this really needs to be discussed at a level where all military contributors can come to a legitimate consensus on the naming standards of all occupation articles. How could we go about doing such a thing? Saji Loupgarou (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany → German occupation of Norway – The current name is needlessly verbose there is no need for the disambiguation word of Nazi (German occupation of Norway is a redirect). As an alternative "Occupation of Norway by Germany" would also be a suitable name. PBS (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (3)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

German occupation of Norway → Norway in World War II – Congruence with other articles e.g.Belgium in World War II, possibility of wider scope for article, as occupation was quasi-totality of events for Norway walk victor falk talk 09:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


The current title is in line with German occupation of Belgium during World War II. Why change the scope of this article instead of just creating a new, wider article? Be aware we also have Norwegian Armed Forces in exile. In short, I oppose a renaming. Srnec (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Belgium was under military occupation, Militärverwaltung, together with a part of Northern France: Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France. German occupation of Belgium during World War II deals with the Belgian part of that area. So you have the following hierarchy: "Belgium in WWII" => "Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France" => "German occupation of Belgium in WWII". "German occupation of X" generally refers to military occupation in wikipedia articles. For instance, "German occupation of France during WWII" redirects to Military Administration in France (Nazi Germany).
Norway was under civilian administration, Reichskommissariat, which is detailed in Reichskommissariat Norwegen. This is entirely comparable to the Netherlands, which has Netherlands in World War II and Reichskommissariat Niederlande. "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile" is analogous to Military history of the Netherlands during World War II (and perhaps "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile" hould also be renamed, since almost every country involved has a "Military history of X in WWII" but not Norway). walk victor falk talk 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Strike that, unless rewitten to fit "Military history of X" format. walk victor falk talk 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Norway was under military occupation, if civilian administration. The whole system of articles (on countries and WWII) is a mess I have wanted to fix for a long time. If this article is moved, should the title redirect to Reichskommissariat Norwegen? If not, why not? And shouldn't there be a merge? This move discussion seems premature so long as we have no article on Norway in WWII to occupy that articlespace. Srnec (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The distinction between civilian and military occupation is an issue that came up at the Hostage case at the Nuremberg trials see the section Clarification of military occupation — The ruling was that effective military occupation continues even if a civilian government is placed in administrative control, if the military power can intervene at will. This has since been codified in Geneva IV and later conventions. So Norway was under German occupation during the Second World what ever Quislings did. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
"German occupation of Norway" should redirect to "Norway in WWII", a plain swap-around. Damn right it's a mess (blame the typically chaotic nazis for that, so contrary to the stereotype of the "ordnung must sein" German), though things have improved over the few years, like for instance this more or less consistent way of reserving "German occupation" for military administrations. walk victor falk talk 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Norway in WWII" involves much more than the occupation of its territory. For example elements of the the Norwegian navy was involved in Operation Neptune in 1944 and its merchant fleet not captured by the Germans was on the allied side throughout the war. The scope of this article is fine for what it covers. An article on "Norway in WWII" can have a section summering this article and cover other aspects of "Norway in WWII" which are outside the scope of this article. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
May I point out that those that are not about areas directly under military German occupation generally are redirects. walk victor falk talk 15:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is the most concise and best description of the summary article scope, which should include everything relating to the German occupation of Norway in WWII, including the Reichskommissariat, and its subordinate functions of military operations, security and civil affairs, as well as the Quisling regime, the resistance etc, which should all have more detailed fork articles. The boundaries of Norway were used as the boundaries of the corresponding German zone of occupation, so there is no more appropriate term to define the area that was occupied. "Belgium and Northern France" is not a good comparison because it was a uniquely defined zone of occupation that did not follow the boundaries of the occupied countries. The Netherlands had a much more similar arrangement to that in place in Norway. The Reichskommissar in Norway was the Reichskommissar für die besetzten norwegischen Gebiete (the Reichskommissar for the occupied Norwegian territories). BTW, Militärverwaltung does not mean military occupation, it means military administration. Military occupation is "militärische Besetzung", usually just "Besetzung" or "Besetzen" depending on the context and grammatical construction. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. User:Peacemaker67 makes a compelling argument. I myself believe that the present naming well suits the breadth of the present article scope. The military v "civil" administration argument is a weak one, IMO. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Peacemaker67 puts it well. And of course Norway was under military occupation, there were close to 400,000 German troops in the country, and those troops were not there as part of any agreement or something like that. A military occupation, plain and simple. Manxruler (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Peacemaker67 sums up a lot of my thoughts. The current title is more accurate than the proposed title. Arsenikk (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose' per Peacemaker67, and my comments above in this section. -- PBS (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Denmark & Norway sections in Allies of World War II need expansion

More detailed information about Denmark and Norway as Allied nations is missing, at Allies of World War II#Denmark and Allies of World War II#Norway. All help in fleshing out these (and other sections in the article as well) much appreciated! walk victor falk talk 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You will have to do the work yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_occupation_of_Norway/Archive_1&oldid=1144426633"