Template talk:Norway during World War II

A place for von Falkenhorst?

Should Nikolaus von Falkenhorst be included on the template? He was military commander of German forces in Norway for almost all of the war. Sam Blacketer 22:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism on this page

The article name is Shoah in Norway. Replacing it with a redlink is bad form
Norway was never an ally of the Soviet Union. Its legitimate government joined the Allied forces during World War II and was generally more aligned with the United Kingdom than anything else
Similarly, the invasion and occupation was a consequence of Nazi German strategy, aided by the Quisling government.
I don't know why you prefer "pink" as the color, but if it's mean to connote a pro-Soviet position, you'r way off base.

--Leifern (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quit silliness, Leifern. I don't know why you use a blue color. The red color indicates support for the Labour party government in London, whose colour is in fact red, not the traditional conservative colour of blue. The claim that those who supported the Allies were "pro-Norwegian", which implies that those who supported the Axis were "anti-Norwegian", is obviously POV. The National Unity party was a Norwegian nationalist party and obviously did not consider itself to be "anti-Norwegian". It's fair and neutral to state that one side supported the Allies and the other the Axis. Also, this is not the Hebrew language Wikipedia, but the English language Wikipedia. In this language, Holocaust is the name of the persecution of Jews. Obrighten (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to have very little knowledge of this matter, let me explain:

If you don't like the title Shoah in Norway, put in the request for changing the article. Don't replace the existing article with a redlink.
Shoah is a Hebrew word, Holocaust is a Greek word. Both have been adopted for usage in the English language
The legitimate Norwegian government in exile was not a Labour government. It was a unity government consisting of representatives from the Labour party, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, and the Farmer's party.
This is a template about the War as it affected Norwegians. The legitimate and official Norwegian government, which enjoyed the unqualified support of 98% of the Norwegian population, was "pro-Norwegian." Quisling and Nasjonal Samling sided with an invading force that had no legitimate or legal reason. We can debate the extent to which Quisling, Jonas Lie, Rinnan, and the other murderous thugs thought they were pro-Norwegian, but the truth was that Norway was at war with Germany. --Leifern (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously further discussion with you makes no sense. This is not a personal blog, if you want to express your opinion on governments and "murderous thugs", do it elsewhere. During the war there were two Norwegian governments which both claimed legitimacy, the difference was that one government was in actual power. Your claim that the exiled government enjoyed 98 % support is unverified original research. It is not for Wikipedia to take side in conflicts or call people "murderous thugs". Please make yourself familiar with the neutral point of view policy. Obrighten (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of many incentives and quite a bit of pressure during the Nazi German occupation, NS never got more membership or votes for more than 2.5% of the population. So perhaps 97.5% is a more accurate number. So much for unverified research. Quisling, Rinnan, and Jonas Lie were demonstrably murderous thugs - they murdered people for the purposes of intimidating them. If Norwegian sovereignty has any meaning, then it makes absolutely no sense to make the Quisling regime equivalent to the government in London. It is your version that constitutes a fringe view that is already covered in the article on Vigrid, where it belongs. --Leifern (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I take it that in your opinion, the Stoltenberg government is not the legitimate government of Norway. After all, 98,3 % of the Norwegian population are not members of the government parties.

This is just silly. By 1940 the vast majorities of the countries of the world were not democracies. The government of Norway was not democratically appointed during most of the 19th century either, but was it illegimate?

The situation is analogous to the situation of the Eastern European countries after WWII, for instance Poland, which had a Soviet-appointed government and a government in exile which both claimed to be the legitimate government. It would certainly be POV to state that the government actually in power during the cold war was not a legitimate government.

Wikipedia is not a web forum, like Aftenposten debatt, so you have to accept that that kind of POV is not accepted. Obrighten (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making strawman arguments:

In the 1936 election, Nasjonal Samling got 1.8% of the vote and no seats in Stortinget. This is to say that 98.2% of those who voted, preferred one of the parties that supported the elected government that ended up in London. Furthermore, it is clear that Nasjonal Samling did not have anything approaching executive power, because Terboven ruled Norway like a dictator. There was no constitutional, legal, or moral basis for the Terboven/Quisling regime, and it only came to be as a result of naked aggression against a sovereign government
Norway was a neutral country until it was attacked and invaded by Nazi Germany. It was not aligned with the Allied powers, and certainly not with the Soviet Union. In fact, Norway provided tacit support for Finland during the Winter War. Consequently, Soviet forces moved out of Finnmark with all deliberate haste at the end of the war. Norway joined the Allies after Germany had declared war on Norway, not before.
Nasjonal Samling is characterized as a fascist party in its Wikipedia article, and that was a result of quite a bit of debate. It's my opinion that it was a Nazi, antisemitic party, but the compromise is that it's fascist. "Fascist" is therefore the right term. If you have a problem with that, take it up on the article about Nasjonal Samling.
Legitimacy of a government is based on the adherence to the constitutional principles upon which the government is based. At no point did the Norwegian government cede its constitutional powers during the spring and summer of 1940, nor did it capitulate to the German aggression. As for 19th century parliamentary politics, that's a whole different set of issues that are utterly irrelevant here.

Any other interpretation is a fringe theory that does not, in any event, belong on a template page. --Leifern (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is rubbish. This has not been the case with a bunch of countries (most countries at some point in their history, actually), most recently Iraq. I presume the Baath party is still the legitimate Iraqi government in your opinion.

It's still a clear violation of the NPOV policy to claim that the London government was "pro-Norwegian" while the Oslo government was not. The London government obviously sided with the Allies, so it's neutral to state that one side supported the Allies and the other the Axis. Obrighten (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat what I have written and request that you respond to it. If you have issues with the characterization fot the government in Iraq or in Norway during the 19th century, bring it up on the relevant pages, rather than imagining what my opinion would be about them.

There is no historical, legal, or other factual basis for making the Nygaardsvold government and the Terboven/Quisling regime equivalent in any way. The former was elected in accordance with the prevailing Norwegian constitution and attacked without provocation or just cause. The latter seized power by force and kept it by means of violence and intimidation. The former became part of the Allies only after Germany had declared war on a neutral government. The latter sought to impose a fascist/Nazi totalitarian regime on a population that was overwhelmingly opposed to it, aided by a small group of Norwegian opportunists and psychopaths. --Leifern (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, that is your point of view, and unaccaptable for a neutral encyclopedia. Obrighten (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my point of view that the German government committed an unprovoked act of war against the neutral government of Norway. It is not my opinion that the regime that took over in Norway was a) illegal and illegitimate, b) guided by fascist and Nazi ideology. Nor is it my opinion that the Norwegian government joined the Allies after they were already at war with Germany. It is not my point of view that the Terboven regime killed, arrested, tortured, and "disappeared" people for purposes of intimidating the population, nor that they tried to murder every single Jew on Norwegian soil. To reduce the sides of this conflict to equivalent opposing forces is what amounts to deep bias and revisionist history. --Leifern (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revised template

I have revised the template in several ways:

The legend colors are now consistent with that used in Template:World War II
The legend itself distinguishes between "Fascist/pro-German" and "pro-Norwegian." Since the overwhelming majority of Norwegians favored the elected government-in-exile and all branches of the legitimate government rejected the Terboven dictatorship and Quisling puppet regime, I think we're on safe historical ground characterizing things this way
I'm open to changing the article Shoah in Norway to Holocaust in Norway, but this should be discussed in the appropriate fora and not on the template page. A redlink is unacceptable, when there is an article on the topic.--Leifern (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed or expanded?

Why is it that the navbox appears in expanded form on Jens Christian Hauge while at Haakon VII of Norway and Norwegian resistance movement it displays in collapsed form, with no parameters indicating one way or the other? __meco (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]