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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, May 17, 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)[reply]

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".

Illegal reverts

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

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

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.