Talk:Vidkun Quisling/Archive 1

Archive 1

Universalism? Huh?

The article says Quisling invented Universalism, which is quite clearly not true. I am an ordained Univeralist minister and reasonably familiar with the fathers of the American Universalist Church (Murray, Ballou, Winchester, etc.) and of course mainstream Christianity was Universalist in nature for the first 500 years after the death of Jesus. Even if Quisling created his own version of Universalism from the whole cloth, as it were, without reference to the rather large existing Universalist community, the article text is still extremely misleading. --Charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Possibly the Universalism was a term that he used that is different from the one you use --Blue Tie (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Quisling, the int'l Word

"After World War II, the name Quisling became a synonym in many languages for traitor." Which languages? The Scandinavian ones? In English as well? -- User:Jheijmans

• I've seen it used that way in English, yes. -- April

I actually learned that meaning in school (in the United States). -Smack 23:44 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't just after WW2 - as early as May 1940 it was in use amongst British politicians (Henry Channon's diary records it being used in exchanges between loyal and rebellious government MPs in the UK on May 8 1940 when Neville Chamberlain's government was under attack). Timrollpickering 21:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have seen the word used in my language (Swedish) from the 80's and on -Sensemaker

Jayjg removed my comparison between the words "a Quisling" and the American English "a Benedict Arnold" with the explanation: "m (revert edits by banned editor) ". However, I, Sensemaker, am no banned editor as far as I know. I think the comparison is both interesting, pedagogic and relevant. Presumably, he accidentally removed my text when he reverted the changed done by someone who really was banned. I have put it back in the text. -Sensemaker

I put it into the See also section; it seemed to make moire sense there. --Guinnog 12:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Helping the Nazis

Could somebody explain how he helped the Nazis? From the current article, it seems that he only was a puppet prime minister and just for a while. Far less than Vichy Regime.

Quisling helped, or tried to help, the Nazis by establishing a kind of "Norwegian" "state-sustaining" political party (Nasjonal samling, NS) built on a variant of the NSDAP Führer principle. NS propagandized to get people to volunteer for service in the Waffen-SS at the eastern front, and succeeded to some deegree in this -- a couple of thousand men and women did volunteer and actually performed such service, as soldiers and nurses, respectively. There was also the civilian "Labour service" (Arbeidstjenesten) helping the Nazis in Norway. --Wernher 22:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dont forget also that Quisling also allowed SS "aryan breeding camps" to continue in Norway.

Not to mention that jews in Norway were expediently shipped to Nazi Germany. Joffeloff 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It also ought to be mentioned (in the article) that Quisling actually visited Hitler in Germany and urged (or at least listed the benefits) him to invade Norway... it probably didn't sway Hitler in anyway, but still... There is a funny cartoon of this were Quisling walks up the stairs and salutes Hitler (or some German officer): "I'm Quisling" "And what is your name?" Koppe 12:40 31 October 2006

The information that Quisling visited Hitler just days before the invasion and supposedly helped in planning it is nothing but rubbish and misinformation. Quisling visited Germany (and Hitler) only once before the invasion, and that was in December 1939. This visit is well documented. While Quisling and his delegation clearly gave their support to the Germans at that time, there was no cooperation between Quisling and Hitler on Operation Weserubung. The cartoon Koppe refers to is from Quislings second visit to Berlin in 1942 and is completely irrelevant to the German invasion. Quisling was a very insignificant person before 9th April 1940, and he was not part of the German plan at all. In fact, he never became friend with Reichskommisar Terboven who saw him as a threat and a neusense. The Germans never granted him any power until 1st February 1942, when he became Minister President. The idea that Quisling supposedly was an agitator and helped the Germans is a misconception often taken for a fact because Quisling has always been a very unpopular figure. This information need to be corrected.

Also, about the invasion, it is highly unlikely and no proof exists that the Germans were planning to imprison the Royal Family. It was anticipated that Norway would surrender without a fight, just like Denmark did. In Denmark the Royal family stayed unharmed throughout the war, and there is video of the King riding through Copenhagen with Germans saluting him. The hunt for the Royal family and the Government in Norway came as a direct result of Norway refusing to surrender and instead putting up a fierce fight. But this was in my opinion not what the Germans had planned. Erikofnorway 04:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to above, Quisling was no longer in active military service in 1940 as indicated in the text (he was out of military service in 1923). Also, the infamous radio broadcast took place in the evening of 9th April 1940 (not 8th April). This was 24 hours AFTER the German invasion and AFTER the Government had fled Oslo. Quisling attempted the infamous "coup" at that time, and it was initally accepted by the Germans. But they rejected him 3 days later when they found out that Quisling did not have any support in the people. And to correct myself, the second visit to Berlin took place summer of 1940 when he was trying to gain power in Norway through negotiations with the Germans. Erikofnorway 04:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have translated the text from the Norwegian Wikipedia, which I believe is a more accurate depiction of what happened. The information and dates is more or less correct, so unless someone disagrees, let us use this as a basis to further expand the text. Erikofnorway 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With Nansen in the USSR

Quisling had a mixed and relatively successful background, having achieved the rank of major in the Norwegian army, and worked with Fridtjof Nansen in the Soviet Union during the famine in the 1930s,

How did he work with Nansen in the 1930s? His wikipedia page says Nansen died in early 1930

A simple typo, obviously. Now corrected to 1920s. --Wernher 22:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the wrong side

After the German surrender, hundreds of thousands of Norwegians, especially women having affairs (Tyskertøs, direct translation "German slut") or children Lebensborn ("war children") with German soldiers and other members of Nasjonal Samling, faced investigation and trial on charges of treason. The Nazi children were to be treated by the parliament of the street and blamed for their fathers' sins for the rest of their lives

This is irrelevant and should be moved to a new(?) article covering that subject. (fixed)

The Minister President

Regarding the following PM predecessor/in-office/successor table:

Preceded by: Johan Nygaardsvold

Prime Minister of Norway

Succeeded by: Einar Gerhardsen

This just doesn't sound right. Quisling didn't get an official position as Head of state (de jure nor de facto) untill 'statsakten' (the state act) in 1942. (Even though he tried to make himself Prime Minister thorugh the failed "Radio coup" on April 9.)

No doubt you are right; Quisling was never a PM. Perhaps the table's contributor meant to indicate a kind of succession of Norwegian Heads of state, but as you say, Herr Reichskommisar Terboven was the real, very "un-Norwegian" Head of state anyway... I "commented out" the table for the time being. Maybe there will be more discussion, which might be interesting(?). --Wernher 22:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rasmus_Faber reinserted the table, but I removed it and placed a link to the PM list in text. It still does bring forward a couple of questions about who was PM during that period, or if the position should be regarded as defunct. Some points/questions:

1. Johan Nygaardsvold didn't leave the country until 07.06.1940. (Northern Norway was still on allied hands.) -Did he ever resign before Gerardsen took over? AFAIK he didn't, allthough he did get himself politically outmanouvered by Gerhardsen while in London.

2. Quisling's coup government (if it ever funcioned as one) did only last for 5 days untill it was replaced by Terboven. Nygaardsvold was still in the country during this time.

3. Quisling didn't resume the post of Minister President untill 1943. -So if we assume that Minister President = Prime Minister and that Nygaardsvold ceised to be PM sometime in 1940, who was then 'PM' 1940-1943? If we regards Quisling as PM, when did that end? When he was arrested, when Gerhardsen returned, or when (if?) Gerhardsen was offically appointed?

From my POV this gives 4 options:

1. Nygaardsvold was PM -1945, with Quisling as an usurper 1943-1945

2. The position of PM was defunct 1940-1945

3. The position of PM was defunct 1940-1942, filled with Quisling 1942-1945

4. The position of PM was defunct 1940-1942, with Quisling as an usurper 1942-1945

--Bjorn H Bergtun 06:35, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After having checked this matter in a printed encyclopedia from 1997 I find that it says (translated) that Nygaardsvold was PM until 20 June 1945, i.e. in alignment with option 1 in your list above. The Norwegian government in exile worked to its fullest extent during the war, which mostly meant taking care of all official duties wrt diplomacy, as well as arranging for resources to be sent to the Norwegian resistanse movement and for military commando training camps to be set up in the UK and Canada). --Wernher 23:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The POV of the Nygaardsvold government is not relevant here, and title "usurper" is not to be used in a neutral encyclopedia entry. Quisling was the prime minister both de facto and, hence, de jure, according to international law. Compare Iraq, where the occupation administration now also is the legal government according to international law, even if not according to (former) Iraqi law. His 1940 government was recognized (if only for 4 days) by those who effectively controlled the country, and his cabinet is thus included in the "Norges statsministre" by Per Otto Borgen. "Ministerpresident" was NOT the same as "Prime Minister", as "Ministerpresident" was the combined function of Head of State, Government and Parliament. Also, Quisling's title 1942-45 is clearly indicated on the list. P. moe

During his 4-day 1940 "government", most of Norway wasn't even occupied yet. Norway wasn't fully occupied untill June (Thus the legimate government wasn't even in exile yet. -It was still functional, and based in Norway.). Also, the way his "government" was outsted both by the occopying Germans and the Supreme Court, -and the fact that it never was functual, shows that it wasn't one. -It was irrelevant, -even in the occupied areas. Would you consider Saddam Hussein toppled the day US and UK forces crossed the Kuwait border?.

Your arguments seem to depend heavely on the fact that Quisling is mentioned in "Norges statsministre" by Per Otto Borgen. This book was published by the largest Norwegian publisher (Aschehoug) in 1999, which consultant was professor Trond Nordby.

Also, note that being in some way democratically elected is not a criteria for being listed for positions in Wikipedia. The first 22 Norwegian "Prime Ministers" (that is, chairmen of the Norwegian government (Den norske regjerings formann) and statsministre) had no parliamentary basis. Saddam Hussein or any other leader are listed for their positions as presidents and prime ministers as well, simply because they had those positions. People who claims to be the legal government from exile are usually not listed. During communist dictatorship, the Soviet puppet regime in Poland was the internationally recognized government, not the "Polish government in exile" in London. P. Moe.

This isn't a list of "Head Bozos of Norway", but "Prime Ministers of Norway". To become one, one must be apointed by the King. (And in later years, approved by the Storting.) Quisling never was, because the king was dismissed. If Nygaardsvold is not to be considered PM of the period, then Haakon VII wasn't king during that period either. (Remember how Norway gained its independence in 1814.) The title he eventually did receive from Terboven was different from PM, both in name and in powers (essentially a puppet of the Reichskommissar, who was the real "Head Bozo" at the time). -Thus it would be equally wrong to put Quisling in a list of PMs, as putting Cromwell in a list of British monarchs. (Which he isn't btw, -at least not in Wikipedia.)

During this time, the legitimate governement was live and kicking (allthough exiled in London.). It had its own armed forces, it controlled resources such as the gold reserves and one of the Worlds largest merchant marines (NORTRASHIP), and it was recognised as Norway's legitimate governement by the majority of the Worlds nations. -There was even Norwegian territory that never was occupied by the Axis, during the war.

As for a comparison with Poland, some of the above points where valid also for Poland, untill the end of the war when communist Poland was recognised by most (all?) of the Worlds nations. --Bjorn H Bergtun 04:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

"Norwegian Führer"

The label the "Norwegian 'Führer'" may be found but has probably not been used much. A Google search gives only the references to wikipedia and related copies. A polemic use of the label on a Norwegian communist (Furubotn) could however be found (Arbeiderbladet, 23.8.1947[1]). I therefore removed this label and moved the information on Gimle down in the article while including information on period of time in Gimle. Arnejohs 07:36, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would say that the label is relevant as to the Norwegian usage -- and Quisling is of course a Norwegian figure -- with Quisling's own use of the word in fresh remembrance for many who listened to his radio addresses during the war (even though he might not have specifically used the word referring to himself he championed the Führer principle both in the NS and in his speeches); so I would actually say it is well-placed in the article, informing of the WWII Norwegian usage. --Wernher 22:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree in the distinction Wernher makes between the German and Norwegian words Führer/fører The first (German) has a significant meaning also in English. The Norwegian fører, even in the context of the Norwegian Nazi Quisling, probably more correctly is translated by leader. It is however historically correct that Quisling made use of the title fører himself, inspired by Hitler. Nevertheless, by translating this to the Norwegian Führer, I believe most readers will miss the fine distinctions between the two languages and the two contexts. In Norwegian texts Quisling seems more often referred to by the title NS-fører (NS-leader) than Fører, not to mention Føreren/Der Führer.Arnejohs 09:26, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I can see your point about nuances getting lost/distorted in translation. But since Quisling and NS made a point of using the Norwegian word Fører (NS tacked on or not) with nonmistakably clear intentions to have the so designated position resonate with the German Führer position (and word), I still think the phrase is valid, and indeed highly relevant, in this article. --Wernher 14:40, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

See, for instance, this passage from Zweiter-Weltkrieg-Lexikon: Qu[isling] [...] ließ sich nach Hitlers Vorbild von seinen Anhängern 'Forer' (Führer) nennen und legte sich eine Leibgarde zu. [2]

I have no problems accepting a reference to the term as such, but I think it is essential to make it clear that Quisling never became a fürer in the meaning of populist leader of the Norwegians nor a fürer in the sense of a leading character in the German occupation since he came in an impossible position in between of the Norwegian and German interests [3]. That is why the few references found on fører and Quisling more often refer to a proclamation (by NS and Quisling) than a reflection of a real situation (as in the case of Hitler). --Arnejohs 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I guess there is something weird about the combination of führer and puppet... It boils down to whether the title "führer" should be reserved strictly for actual strongmen, or also be used for mere figureheads. Perhaps "NS führer" and/or "self-titulated führer" could be used. At the very least, Quisling's strong belief in the Führerprinzip should be reflected in the article. --Bjorn H Bergtun 20:17, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Should Q be included in the prime minister line?

See Johan Nygaardsvold. If a ruler is legitimate or not is actually fully POV, but seldomly doubted in a democracy. The rule proclaiming Q a prime minister, was however not democratic, but a government by occupation, while the government legitimate by being chosen by the Norwegian people, was in exile. ✏ Sverdrup 19:26, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It is completely irrelevant. See my comments above. And see Iraq for another example, where the occupation government is listed as so, not Saddam Hussein, because they are de facto, and hence, de jure (so is the law of war). The same applies to the kings of Norway, and the first 22 prime ministers with no democratic basis. The list of prime ministers here is simply a list of people holding this de facto position, from any regime and regardsless of the point of view of their political opponents. p moe

No it isn't, -or it shouldn't. It would be equally wrong as putting Cromwell in a list of British monarchs. (See above) Also, the Dutch and Belgian PM lists seem to list exiles. --Bjorn H Bergtun 04:55, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

PMoe, your POV is clear, but it is not in line with the common understanding of what a Prime Minister is. I don't understand your example from Iraq and can not see that the List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Iraq supports your POV. You should also remember that while Johan Nygaardsvold was leading his government while exiled in London, Saddam Hussein is not. --Arnejohs 06:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

As for Cromwell, he was a King in all but in writing. He was even succeded by his son, this being a final conformation that England was still a Monarchy 360 or so years ago. Never was a Republic. As for Quisling being a PM, well the previous PM built down Norways defences, then having to rely on it's protection while running away. I don't want to say "how ironic". I'd say Quisling was a PM, here is not saying he was successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Best ever war academy cadet?

The article reads, "[...] having achieved the rank of major in the Norwegian army (some years before he had become the country's best ever war academy cadet upon graduation) [...]".

What qualifies a "best ever war academy cadet"? I'm not questioning the statement, I'm just curious and thinking that maybe it should be clarified.

Thanks, — Pladask 04:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, this means that Q. was the person scoring the best grades at his graduation from the war academy, up to that time. In other words, he set the 'grade record' at that time. No one before him had obtained as good grades as (t)his. There may of course be cadets after his class and up to the present who have bettered the record. However, IIRC, I think Q. held the record for quite some years after WWII. --Wernher 20:05, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If that's so (and I'm not questioning that you're right), the sentence in the article should be re-written for clarity. Arguably, a source should be cited as well. As written, it's ambiguous and sounds somewhat dubious without a source. 66.17.118.195 19:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

POV lead

The label the most infamous traitor in the history of Norway seems POV to me. We can get this idea across without starting the article with such a categorical statement. Look at Adolf Hitler for good ideas on how an NPOV lead to an article about a controversial figure can look like. Haukurth 16:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Convicted of what, exactly?

The article simply says he was convicted; it doesn't specify the charge. One assumes it was for treason, but it would be good to detail the actual specification of the charge(s). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 10:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was treason. And the intro actually states it. The Norwegian wiki has a longer listing of the charges and conviction, roughly translated to English they read:

Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Quisling is sentenced to death for crimes against the military laws of § 80, nr. 1, 2 and 3 and against the civil laws of §§ 83, 84, 86, 98, 233, 239, 255, as in §§ 256, 257, 275 og 317, and § 318 and the provisorical regulations(?) (Norw: "Anordninger") of 3. october 1941 and 22. january 1942, in accordance with the pennalty law § 62.

I'll insert the treason word for now. Someone with more knowledge of all these laws and the whole thing might want to put in further details. Shanes 10:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverted as the article clearly was POV

I did a revert to a previous version as the article clearly was POV, the user Arno M. Daastøl have added a lot of info that is either not relevant, doubtful or false. I reverted to the last version I fould that seems to be NPOV. Ulflarsen 20:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the text was POV, though I think you have reverted a bit too much. There is no reason to hide the information about his involvement with Fridtjof Nansen or with the Soviet Union. His stationing in Russia obviously shaped his political views, and was an important of his life. --Tokle 20:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree, but rather quickly I took the best version I could find. Regarding his years in Russia there also was info about him getting an order from the British government, tried to find info about that but could not, so I would at least leave that out. But as I am not an expert on Q I will not do more on the article for the moment, will leave it to users with more knowledge about him. Ulflarsen 21:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the user, but the sum of his edits seems biased, so your reverting to the version of 20 October 2005 is probably for the best. However, there has been some categorisation and interwiki linking since that, which should be reinstated. --Eddi (Talk) 22:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can see there was just one category that was removed by the revert, and I've fixed that. The interwiki links are all the same as before the revert, they're just realigned alphabetically. --Tokle 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored two languages that were forgotten (pt:, sk:) and realigned the interwiki alphabetically. --Eddi (Talk) 22:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What are the rules for alphabetical alignment of languages that don't use the latin alphabet? I see you moved Japanese to Nipponese, should the same be done with Hebrew, which is pronounced Ivrit? Or Chinese? --Tokle 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

According to project talk there is no policy, only an undecided poll. As far as I have seen, however, most people order languages alphabetically on displayed or pronounced names, not codes. A list of language codes, displayed names and transliterated non-Latin names is given in Finnish. (I didn't know that list until now, so my alphabetisation was incomplete.) --Eddi (Talk) 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To complicate things even further; there are many different methods of transliteration of the east-asian languages. And this Finnish list might not be 100% compatible with the English language. --Tokle 15:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulf Larsen, You claim that some of my info is false. Please enlighten me on what this might be as you state no reasons for this. Furthermore, I find it far over the edge of political correctness to remove the stated reasons why Quisling became the man he became, namely his experiences in Russia and in Norway. Furthermore his services for Britain is even mentioned by Encyclopedia Britannica. Finally, to remove my references to a book by his secretary, Franklin Knudsen, is tantamount to censorship. Arnomd 17:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC) (time and date added by User:Eddideigel)

As I stated I am not an expert on Q. You may as any other rewrite the article providing you have knowledge about the subject. However - you should back up your statements with references. I am also sceptic regarding this paragraph - seems to me a lot about Nansen and not much about Q:

"The Bolshevik experience even affected the national hero Nansen to a degree that made him found and front the movement Fedrelandslaget ("The Fatherland Association") in 1925, which Quisling later joined on his return from the Soviet Union in 1930. This was an anti-Communist and anti-Parliamentary organisation of some 100 000 members at its height, which tried to have the Labour Party and the Communist Party deemed illegal, but when this proved difficult they opted for a mobilisation of non-Socialist voters, resulting in a land-slide election against the Socialists in 1930. After the death of Nansen it ran for Parliament and in 1940 worked for a collaborationist government with the Labour Party and the Germans. There is speculation that Nansen planned for a coup, but died prematurely in 1930. This association with Fascism of Nansen, the Polar hero, is today conveniantly forgotten in Norway. Nansen's and Quisling's political work may therefore to a large extent be seen as a reaction on the pressure and threat from Soviet Russia and their collaborators domestically, as was typical for the Fascist movements in Europe. Quisling's own party from 1933 differed from Nansen's movement in that Quisling adopted a programme of more radical social reform, thereby establishing it as Nationalist and Socialist, in other words a version of National Socialism, or Fascism, which opposed the rule of Moscow and the Comintern over the world's nations."

Likewise this long paragraph about alledged smuggling of money from Soviet:

"Quisling served as defense minister in the Agrarian government of 1931–1933. In 1932 he led a Parliamental Committee of investigation, whose report exposed the wide ranging plans of the Labour Party to install a Bolshevik regime in Norway with Russian support. Part of the plans were to establish Northern Norway as a separate Bolshevik regime, independent from Oslo. Gold was early smuggled in from Moscow over the northern border in advance to support the new regime e.g. by Alfred Matsen who was arrested in 1920, and thereafter nicknamed "Goldsmuggler Matsen". Typically Matsen later became member of the board of the Norwegian Central Bank Norway's Bank from 1929 and then a Minister of Trade. Likewise Sverre Støstad recieved 8 000 crowns per year (a workingman's average pay per hour was in 1930: 1,20 crowns) from Comintern for his work in the Scandinavian Communist Federation, designed to arm workers and erect Communist cells in the armed forces. Støstad was later to become President of the Norwegian Parliament. Documents in the report proved that e.g. Trygve Lie, later the first United Nations Secretary-General, had received Bolshevik money in 1921. The report exposed extensive smuggling of weapons, establishment of weapon storages and of armed forces counting more than 8 000 men. As late as March 1932 half a million Norwegian crowns were transferred from Comintern to support the Communists cells in the Norwegian defence forces. Quisling's exposure was supported in the Parliament by the non-socialist parties with 108 against 42 votes and the plans were put down, but no measures were taken against the Labour Party politicians. In 1935 a Labour government was formed under Johan Nygaardsvold."

This paragraph about allegded illegal change of election periods seems to be rather odd:

"During the 1930s, there were several obscure events in Norwegian politics. For instance, according to the Norwegian Constitution, elections were to be held every 3 years. The last election being in 1936, the next election due in 1939 was nevertheless postponed, although once again: The Norwegian Constitution had very strict rules for such changes, demanding this to be ratified by subsequent Parliaments over several years, rules that were disregarded. The Labour Government's introduction of a new election law, 22 April 1938, was therefore unconstitutional. From a legal and constitutional point of view, likewise, the Norwegian Parliament and Labour Government were illegal after 1939. Ironally, this contrast to Hitler's legal takeover in 1933 in Germany, put Norwegian democratic parties in an odd light."

Again, Wikipedia is edited by all interested contributors, on an equal basis and I am NO expert on Q. So your contribution is as good as mine, as far as it keeps to the point and abides to the NPOV rules. In my opinion your latests additions are not to the point or well documented. But you have all possibilities to raise each paragraph and have it reinstated if you convince others that your additions are NPOV. Ulflarsen 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulf, there is no such things as being neutral. On the other hand, one should try to be balanced, and I certainly agree that one should supply the sources and references for one's information. I supplied one such source, a book published by Q's secretary in the UK in 1967, which includes many quotes from the Parliamental report from 1932. But interestingly enough this reference was removed by you. So, you ask me to supply references, and when I do you censor them. Rather amazing, I find. I am also puzzled as to whether this demand for sources applies to other and more political correct information, since I have seen no such references regarding the negative aspects of Quisling. I did of course not alter that negative information out of respect for a balanced view and historical facts. I do indeed not pretend to defend Q, but in an historical evaluation, he is entitled to the same balanced treatment as everybody else, since we all strive to approach a balanced and accurate version of history, do we not?

Regarding my long passages on Nansen and Communist gold-smugling from Moscow etc. the passages were included to show the background for Q's opnions and actions. These events were intimately connected to Q's life and are therefore crucial, indeed, in order to understand Q. Regarding the gold-smuggling, this cannot easily be transferred to another article - (under what heading should this be? (perhaps that of Comintern's subversion of foreign nations?). Concerning the "allegded illegal change of election periods", this is an historical fact and not "rather odd", as you suggest. I would suggest that you read up on Norwegian history, before you go about censoring what other people write about it. Besides, it may be a good idea to comment the article and allow several opinions, instead of changing and censoring the article and the list of references, apparently striving for the "one true version of history", as indeed all totalitarians would prefer. Arnomd 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to see references validating your claim in the last paragraph I removed, that the Norwegian election period was changed in a way that violated the law. And again - I am not censoring you, as its rather difficult to do that on Wikipedia. But I removed three large blocks of text that I do not see improves the article, on the contrary as two of them are lot of talk of possibly true but minor incidents, and the third I have never seen mentioned by any mainstream publication. If - as you state, that the Norwegian parliament and government of 1940 was illegal, it is indeed strange that I have not heard or read about it. Ulflarsen 22:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ulf, for information on the "illegal Parliament" after 1939, please have a look at the well established Norwegian encyclopedia, Norgeslexi, under "Stortinget av 1936":[4] I would prefer to use my time in better ways than wasting it in writing what you then remove. I would like to put the sections you removed back into the article, perhaps somewhat polished as I am of the strong opinion that they are crucial in order to understand Q and the period before the war in Norway. I understand your disagree, since you removed them - and may do so again. How do we solve this? --arnomd 14:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Interesting, learned something new - but that´s one of the good parts of participating here. I do however believe you got the debate out of context, and warping in in a direction that suits a favourable view of Quisling´s motives.

As for reinstating what I removed; frankly - I dont see that it adds to making a better article about Quisling. So I will definitely not support it, but as I am not an expert on Quisling I am not the one to judge, and I will not do a revert. So if you insert the text again and nobody else objects to it - then it will be with the article. Ulflarsen 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've go a couple of comments on the pieces of text discussed above:

There is speculation that Nansen planned for a coup, but died prematurely in 1930. This association with Fascism of Nansen, the Polar hero, is today conveniantly forgotten in Norway.

• This does not really have anything to do with Q. Especially adding the POV statement about Nansen. A statement that I agree with, but I don't think it fits in an encyclopedia.

"During the 1930s, there were several obscure events in Norwegian politics. ... Ironally, this contrast to Hitler's legal takeover in 1933 in Germany, put Norwegian democratic parties in an odd light."

• These two sentences only serve to colour the paragraph, and should be left out.

Apart from that I don't oppose reinstating it in the article. --Tokle 15:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Constitutionality of landssvikanordningen

This topic probably deserves its own article, linked in with this and the legal purge article. Still, the supreme court has ruled that the legislation that criminalized membership in NS with retroactive effect to April 9, 1940, as well as the "anordning" Gerharden's "samlingsregjering" (unity government) passed, both were constitutional. The capital case against Quisling and others who were condemned were in any event based on crimes that were already illegal (high treason, torture, murder), so their trials are less in question.

See also, inter alia:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

--Leifern 14:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was something fishy about that statement. :) Inge 14:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is to give the reader a short introduction on why this person is notable. The equivalent section on Hitler does not state he was a soldier and painter it only gives the relavant information on him. This should also be the case here. The Defence minister, army officer and Nansen aid worker is to be delt with in the section on his early life further down. Inge 09:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You should rather check our style guide for featured articles. Being Defense Minister of Norway is certainly not comparable to being a soldier or painter! The article should note why he is notable, and both of the two political offices he held, like it is done for similar politicians. Sindicate 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If Donald Rumsfeld was to become POTUS, it would also be appropriate to point out that he previously served as defense minister in the introduction. In the article Condoleezza Rice it is mentioned that Rice previously was National Security Advisor, before becoming Secretary of State. Sindicate 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And it is pointed out that he served as defense minister. You are misinterpreting not to be in the header with not to be in the article. The information is relevant for the article , but not for the header. It is a paragraph further down just as in the Condoleezza Rice article. The first sentance/paragraph is supposed to give a short description of why he is famous. Anyone who knows anything about Quisling knows he was a fascist and a traitor. To describe him as a Centre Party politician and army officer even before Fascist is to grosely and grotesquely exagerate those points. Inge 10:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Best ever?

Currently the article claims that he graduated as the country's "best ever" war cadet. I'm nearly positive there are more descriptive adjectives we could use for this. Whoever actually knows about Quisling might put like a "highest-ranking" or some such, because "best ever" is incredibly vague. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.49 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Fascist Link?

The external link to "The Norwegian SS Volunteers" seems to point to a website that looks very neo-nazi to me. Is it just my biased opinion or is it really a rather inappropriate link to have on Wikipedia? rturus 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

They have a disclaimer on the first page which claims no political or radical affiliations and ask "right-wing fanatics" to click on a link leading to the Holocaust Memorial Center website. The Norwegian SS Volunteers forum seems to be mainly for war hobbyists, people into helmets, insignia and so on. Not sure if it's a useful link, but has info on Norwegian SS collaborators. Freshacconci 00:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This website is mine and is a Politically neutral site about the Norwegians that fought on the "wrong" side. There is nothing in this website that promotes radical political views and it is purely historical. About it's relevance, it is important to understand that Quisling was an important figure in the recruitment of these soldiers, and that they were a part of his plan to create a "new" Norwegian Army. Quisling himself visited the front, and two of his ministers were volunteer soldiers themselves. Quisling is refered to several places on the website, and there are several pictures of him there. The website is an excellent startingpoint for someone who wants to learn a little more about Quisling and what happened around him during the war. Erikofnorway 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. I am sorry I had not noticed your responses before this. rturus (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

mixed and successful;

What does mixed mean here? (In Early Life section) This is not comprehensible English. It has been in the article for many years, earlier versions say mixed and relatively successful background - still not much help. Should it be "varied"?John Z 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Head of government"

There are several reasons why it is inaccurate to describe Quisling as Norway's head of government in either a de facto or de jure sense:

• At least one supreme court case concerning the Elverum Authorization and governmental policy makes it clear that Quisling's claim to head Norway's government was illegal and illegitimate. There are controversies around specific aspects of this, including whether there was a capitulation in May of 1940, and the exact nature of the Elverum authorization. But to the extent that Norway is a sovereign nation with the right to make such determination, there is no place for the contention that Quisling had any legal right to be Norway's head of government.
• It is also clear that Quisling held considerably less power than Terboven during the occupation. We are not inclined to list Terboven as a head of state of Norway, but his claim would be stronger on a de facto basis.
• There was a government of Norway during these years, and a country can only have one government. --Leifern (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like the Greek, Italian or Persian royal families awaiting their reinstallation? Seriously, the argument you present appear to me more than just a little "history revised by the victors". It is generally perceived in Norwegian culture that Quisling was the head of state. All sorts of rhetorical and philosophical excercises may be attempted to get around this. In my opinion this is intellectually dishonest. __meco (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not generally perceived in Norwegian culture that Quisling was the head of state. I believe most view him as a failed copy of Hitler. He wanted to be fürer of Norway, but succeeded only in becoming a traitor. To portray Quisling as a head of state or real government leader is in my view dishonest. As stated by Leifern he was not de jure head of state or government and de facto Terboven held the real power inside Norway.Inge (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern and Inge. Quisling was neither the de jure or de facto leader of Norway during the war. Adding to what Inge wrote he was a tool, and a rather dull one at that, of the German occupation regime. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He was a Head of Government, but that was a Nazi Government in Norway (or something). That Government was rather weak, possibly due to Quisling himself. Do have in mind, 2/3.rds of all Norwegian nazis stayed clear of Quisling and Nasjonal Samling, as they saw him as being weak. yeah but no but....he was a tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bang

Of Quisling's arrest, trial, and execution, the article says that "subsequently, these sentences have been controversial, as capital punishment was reintroduced by the government in exile at the end of the war, specifically in anticipation of the post-war trials". This really needs to have a sourced explanation of the controversy. In particular, it's not clear whether it was the sentence of death that was controversial, or the trial itself, and in both cases why. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal icon placement

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Cirt (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quisling was also an eugenist

The article is good, but fails, when it doesn't tells that Vidkun Quisling was also an eugenicist.He was a follower of eugenics.Such as so many eugenicists, Quisling had no sons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.29.253 (talk) 13:26, April 21, 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware that he has promoted, or subscribed to even, such views, but if there exists sources which assert this, I'm sure this would find it's way into this article. __meco (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that he was a believer in facism a negative view on eugenics would have been surprising. Taemyr (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)