Talk:Norwegian campaign

Additional Resources

• U.S. Navy photos of the Scharnhorst taken during the Norway Campaign
• This one is not on the Norwegian Campaign, but has some good points on it.
• Great Order of Battle. (In Swedish)
• Norway during WW2 forum

Oberiko 19:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Couple of images from Commons:

• Panzer I on parade in Oslo
  Panzer I on parade in Oslo
• Panzer IIC in Norway
  Panzer IIC in Norway

Harald Hansen 08:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Weserübung

Is everyone aware of the very detailed Operation Weserübung? These should probably be merged, or have Weserubung reference this. DJ Clayworth 18:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, once this article is finished I'll start going about adding iLinks from other ones. Oberiko 19:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Allied campaign in Norway

How is the relation between the article Allied campaign in Norway and this? --Johan Magnus 13:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Allied Campaign is the counterattack to the German invasion, specifically the ground campaign. It would be the "Main Article" (If I don't right more in this heading then exists at the current article) of section labelled so. Oberiko

Thank you for your answer.

I do not intend to pose as stupid, but maybe I seem so anyway. :-)

Ought this article maybe be called "Norwegian campaigns" then?

--Johan Magnus 18:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Allied campaign was by no means a "counterattack" to a German invasion. The thing is the other way round. The Allies wanted to invade Norway and Sweden to occupy the iron ore fields there and cut off the Germans from supply. The Germans then responded with a preventive attack. This is clearly shown by the British very own records. https://archive.org/details/AlliedInvasionOfNorwayTheScandinavianSituationPossibleUseOfForcesOccupationOfNor --154.69.26.202 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This is still a matter of debate among historians. I don't think we can or should solve the issue here, instead we should present clear facts (events) and may present scholarly interpretations of the facts. Allied landing in South Norway (Åndalsnes and Namsos) is regarded as an attempt to liberate Trondheim, but in reality turned into a support for the Norwegian defenders (I think there is clear support for this in the sources) and certainly allowed King and Cabinet to escape to Britain. The Battle of Narvik is a different matter, as allied plans prior to April 9th did involve an occupation of Narvik and the Swedish Iron Ore fields. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Allied plans for landings at Narvik are covered in the section called "Winter War" already. The Finno-Soviet peace in March 1940 torpedoed those plans. It's already there. Manxruler (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe so as it was one continuous sequence of events. Compare this to the Western Desert Campaign or the Eastern Front where each side made advances and sebsequent counterattacks and you'll see a pretty good similarity. Another thing to consider is that official documentation (including that belonging to the UK government) refers to it as the Norwegian Campaign. Oberiko

But the German and the Franco-British campaigns can hardly be one and the same — or is my faulty English fooling me? --Johan Magnus 09:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you're accurate, but every military engagement is done from two different sides, this one really isn't any different. If you're speaking about the original plans (Wilfred and Weserbung), Wilfred was cancelled almost immediately on learning of the invasion and the British spent most of the time counteracting. Oberiko 15:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Narvik and the Norwegian Campaign

Hi Oberiko. Good work on the Norwegian Campaign article. Could I get your advice on a couple of points? I recently extended the article on Narvik significantly to discuss allied operations there. However, since the WWII stuff is now 4/5th of the Narvik article I'm not sure if the detail belongs in Narvik or elsewhere. At the moment, the organization of the articles on the Norwegian Campaign is a bit of a mess, there's Norwegian Campaign and then Norwegian campaign which redirects to Allied Campaign in Norway, there is also a separate Battles of Narvik article. I think that Norwegian campaign should redirect to Norwegian Campaign that Allied Campaign in Norway should be merged with Norwegian Campaign and that an article titled Narvik in WWII or something should be created containing Battles of Narvik as well as the text I wrote in Narvik. Do you think this is a good idea?

Also, I'm not sure I agree with your statement on Operation Wilfred that that operation was designed to provoke a German response. In The Gathering Storm Churchill seems to indicate that the purpose was to stop the iron-ore shipments and prevent the Germans from going around the blockade. The primary-source texts Churchill provides support this. Churchill of course is a biased source so I was wondering if you had a particular source that said the intention of the operation was to provoke a German response. Thanks - GabrielF 21:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howdy GabrielF. It's currently a mess because I planned on organizing it once I have the main article finished. The article heirarchy I think we should have would likely be as follows.

• Norwegian Campaign (Overview of the entire thing)
  • Operation Wilfred - Initial British plans
  • Operation Weserübung - German plan and initial invasion
  • Allied campaign in Norway - The following ground campaign in Central and Northern Norway (probably renamed)
    • Campaign in Narvik
    • Campaign in Central Norway
      • Mauriceforce (Namsos in April 1940)
      • Sickleforce

I think the Narvik article can be left as is, as AFAIK, most of the importance and reference to the city is based on its role in World War II.

Okay, I'll defer to you on the organization of these pages. Please let me know if I can be of any help. GabrielF 02:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To be truthful, I'll be putting this campaign on the back-burner once the 'main' page here is finished; there's quite a bit on my to-do list as it is. Anywhere you can add something would help. Oberiko 02:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the remark that it was intended to provoke a response, my main source is [1], a publishing from the U.S. Army which states: The supposition was that WILFRED would provoke German counteraction, and Plan R 4 was to become effective the moment the Germans landed in Norway "or showed they intended to do so.". I also took information from Battles For Scandinavia by John Elting which states: Operation Wilfred was finally scheduled to begin on April 8; Plan R4, Churchill confidently expected, would be triggered almost immediately thereafter.. Oberiko 22:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems from the quotes that the Allies expected a response but weren't necessarily hoping to provoke one. I've changed the wording a little to reflect the quotes. GabrielF 02:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

I just went through the text and cleaned up a few spelling, and punctuation errors that I found, and also rephrased a few of the more awkward sentences. I have a couple of questions though regarding things: I changed "naval landings" to "amphibious landings" at one point, I assumed these are the same thing, but afterwards it occured to me that they might not be, any suggestions? Also, a lot of the dates in the article are ambiguous in terms of years. I know this probably all happened in one year (1940), however I think that the year should be given for the first date in at least every major section - for people (like myself) who have no prior knowledge of things like this, or their timeframe. Additionally, it's frustrating to go straight to, say, the Second Narvik Battle part of the article straight away, and see a date with no year, and have to search all over the rest of the article for the contextual date. --Lor 08:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS: Sorry about the three revisions in the history of the article...I didn't realise I had done that. --Lor

Links, Links, Links

There should be a long list of the links within the article put at the end or bottom of the article. There is no way I am going to comb through this. The See also section should be a mega-link farm. I can't find anything in this article. --McDogm 01:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I'm going to remove the merge notice, this article covers the entire campaign, the other one covers just the initial German invasion. Oberiko 15:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Important people

Norwegians

• Carl Joachim Hambro: Speaker in the Norwegian Parliament, organised escape of King and government
• Haakon VII: King of Norway
• Kristian Laake: Norwegian Armed Forces Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C), quickly replaced after invasion
• Otto Ruge: Norwegian Armed Forces C-in-C, Laake's replacement
• Carl Gustav Fleischer: commander of the Norwegian 6th division. Coordinated Norwegian, French, Polish and British forces in the recapturing of Narvik.

Germans

• Alfred Saalwächter: Naval Group West C-in-C
• Nikolaus von Falkenhorst: Commander of ground forces
• Erhard Milch: Commander of air forces
• Eduard Dietl: The German general responsible for the invasion of Northern Norway.

Allies

• Charles Forbes: British Home Fleet C-in-C
• Adrian Carton De Wiart: British military commander at Namsos
• William Boyle, 12th Earl of Cork Naval commander during the seizure of Narvik

Neutrals

• Leland Stowe: US journalist, covered the Norwegian campaign with critical articles in Chicago Daily News. His writing was credited with helping force Chamberlain out of office.

German occuption force

The current article contains the number of German occupation forces in Norway in 1944 of 400.000 (!?) While I am not an expert on this myself, I am editing it down to 40.000, as it is just blatantly unreal that you would use half a million men to garrison a country of 4 million (that's like one soldier pr 8 people) or roughly 10% of total German forces. No way. Justpedersen 07:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Way! This seems unbeliavable, but it is true. The soldiers were not all there to keep the Norwegian people in control. Hitler was personally convinced that an allied invasion of Norway was eminent. And as with many of the decisions he made contrary to advice from his generals this wasn't a very good one. There were also some plans of abandoning Germany and contiuing the war from "Festung Norwegen" in 1945.Inge 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep. It's one of the reasons why the invasion was, on balance, a mistake. Lovingboth 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hitler kept a large force in Norway cause he never let go of the thought that Churchill might land there and open a new front. After the defeat of the Petsamo-Kirkenes Operation more German forces were pushed into Norway, bringing the total up to about 400,000, for most of the war it was more like 350,000. Manxruler 04:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Resistance

I see no mention here of the Norwegian resistance, in particular those few Norwegian nationals trained to be commandoes in England and then shipped secretly into Norway. I know that they mostly had limited success, but the Norwegian homegrown resistance, along with the Lapplanders, had what could be described as great success with helping a few of those men to survive and escape to Sweden against enormous odds, among other feats. Is there perhaps a separate page somewhere catering to this side of the Norwegian war experience? Rudy Breteler 01:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

See: Norwegian resistance movement Manxruler 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

1944 Re-Invasion of Norway

Why is there no mention of the British landing in Norway which liberated most of the country by the end of the war.

That's a different campaign in Norway. I do agree it should be in the aftermath section. Oberiko 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The british never landed in Norway after 1940. Soviet forces liberated Finnmark, but the rest of the country was not free until the germans surrendered. Thats probably why..--Njård 00:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by landing, the British did go ashore in Norway after 1940 (Operation Archery is one instance), I do also believe some British units participated in the Norwegian liberation process, but the hand-overs and other main operations were by Norwegian MILORG and exile military units. I am not too shure about this as I can't remember where I read it, but I am sure that Norway(minus Finnmark) was not "re-invaded" (and certainly not in 1944). The Germans sourrendered and handed control over to the Norwegians (in 1945). Inge 11:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

These were just minor raids, executed mainly by Norwegians in British uniforms armed with british weapons. A re-invation, it was not...--Njård 12:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The raid mentioned above featured 1 cruiser, 4 destroyers, air support and 570 men. Of these 12 to 16 men were Norwegian. Operation Anklet was also mainly British, but several others like Operations Freshman, Grouse and Gunnerside were mainly Norwegian. I agree with you Njård that there was no re-invasion. Inge 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

SURRENDER?

Under the "Occupation" section it states that "Norway soon surrendered". I was under the impression that there never was a surrender as the Norwegian Government in Exile was formed. Can anyone clarify this point? rturus 17:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TO CLARIFY THE ABOVE^^ The Official Government of Norway under Vidkun Quisling following the flight of King Hakkon officially surrendered to Germany, However the rightful government, the one recognized by the Allies, Hakkon's government, never officially surrendered. That government moved to the north and continued resistance. Also, i find it interesting that no one has mentioned in the article the name of the cruiser lost by the Kriegsmarine, the Blucher, and even more surprising is that the Altmark Incident was not mentioned, even as it took place in the same theater of operations.Tommy G 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My Mistake There is an Altmark Section, Apologies

To clarify the clarification: the Quislings were never an official government, they were collaborators. Haakon VII was the name of the Norwegian king. I've done a small edit to change the text a little, to clarify that it was only the mainland army of Norway that capitulated. The Blücher has a big section in the Invasion of Norway article. This is not a very good article, but its ok for now. Maybe I'll give it a solid work over in the future, when I have the time. Manxruler 04:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a comment here: As Manxruler stated the Quislings never were an official government. Some places one might find stated that they were either a de facto or de jure government. Espeshially in the German wikipedia there is an emphasis on Quisling as a proper "ruler" of Norway. Some places one might find stated that the Nygaardsvold government abandoned their posts when leaving Oslo. Some even state that the Norwegian Storting asked King Haakon to abdicate. Some emphasise that the monarchy was abolished. These are in my mind disturbing signs of history being manipulated. In fact the de jure government of Norway remained the Nygaardsvold government. The de facto governmnet of mainland Norway was Terboven. Quisling was a puppet in action briefly in 1940 and then again from 1942. The constitution of Norway has no provisions stating the Government has to be in Oslo to be legitimate. The Storting gave emergency powers to the Nygaardsvold government at Elverum. The Storting never asked the King to abdicate. A few of the minor members of the Storting mainly from Høyre had remained in Oslo and was under death threats when they agreed to issue a letter asking Haakon to step down. Terboven later issued a decree were he as dictator of Norway decreed that monarchy had been abolished. This was of course unlawfull. end of rantInge 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

An article for this now exists under Liberation of Finnmark. Indy beetle (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Norwegian naval losses as portrayed in the Analysis section

I would just like to mention that the list of Royal Norwegian Navy losses in the Analysis section is dreadfully incomplete. The source used there is uboat.net which has no overview whatsoever of the RNoN during the campaign. The losses were far greater that the impression given here. I have sources to correct this information and will get working on it as soon as I have sufficient spare time. Manxruler 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Possibilities

The lead into the article needs to be balanced a little. As I understand it, the British were equally as intent, as were the Germans, to occupy Norway. And in fact, the actions of the Germans pre-empted the British plan to do so. Also, if the losses and minuses of the German operation are to remain in the lead, the losses of the British should also be included. The other possibility is shortening the lead, and placing this information in the appropriate sections of the article. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The second option is definitively preferable. The Brits were planning to land at Narvik, Trondheim, Bergen and Stavanger when they had hard proof the Germans were going to invade. This would in all possible likelihood not have led to war between the UK and Norway, since the Norwegian military were under order not to fire at allied forces, only at German intruders. This again led to some hesitation amongst the Norwegian defenders on 9 April as in some cases the nationality of the intruders were unclear. The losses of the Brits are already included in the main text, I'll fix the German losses in the same section. Manxruler (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me,... Poland?

Correct me if I'm wrong but Poland did not exist in 1940. Polish military was destroyed by Nazi Germany, Polish government and political elite packed its bags in a hurry and ran across the border and territory that used to be Poland was completely occupied by Nazi Germany and USSR in 1939-1940.Zealander (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Poles continued to fight in exile and the Polish government continued to exist. The Poles contributed greatly with both land and naval forces at the Battles of Narvik. The Polish military was not destroyed and indeed kept on fighting throughout the war. Manxruler (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Narvik campaing left out and mistake in article

Strangely, this article hardly mention at all the longest and largest land battle in Norway during the invation, the recapture of Narvik. In contrast, the article states that the Norwegian 6.Division was far to the north to take any part. Wrong, led by Carl Gustav Fleischer, this division was important in the recapture of Narvik by Norwegian, British, French and Polish forces. The Norwegian forces, around 7,000 men, fought the Germans for two months in the mountains and valleys north and east of Narvik. The Germans were pushed back to Narvik. On 28.May 1940, the town was recaptured by allied forces, including Norwegian forces, such as the Hyldmo Battalion. This was the first time in WW2 that the Germans were kicked out of a captured town.Orcaborealis (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Still hard to believe that the main ground campaign by the Norwegian Armed Forces are left out in article. For instance, when a Norwegian army force I/IR 12 (roughly batalion size) due to bad leadership went down to sleep in houses in the village Gratangen, they were ambushed by German forces on the night before 25.April 1940, with the loss of 34 dead and 60 badly wounded. The fought back, and about 300 men escaped the trap, able to fight another day. This was men from Sør-Trøndelag and Nordmøre. On the other hand, at the battle of the Kuberg plateau (mountains of Hundbergan, Storebalak, Kopparfjell and Kuberg) in the mountains north of Narvik 14. May to 22. May, the Norwegian armed forces from the 6. Division was able to win against equally sized German forces in strong positions at mountain summits and plateaus. The Norwegian army losses was only 3 dead, while the Germans lost 50 men. This is possibly in some part due to the Norwegian methodical approach using some time to get to the right positions and use of sharp shooters (civililan life competition shooters). See Narvik 1940. Nazi-Tysklands første tilbakeslag under 2. verdenskrig., ISBN 978-82-91451-14-5. See also Skorpa prisoner of war camp. Orcaborealis (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the Norwegian Invasion

According to General Maurice Harvey, RAF, "Scandinavian Misadventure", who based his research on documents of the Imperial War Cabinet, it was Winston Churchill who had discussed an invasion of Norway and Sweden with Admiral Pound, and by September 12 had drafted a plan for the invasion to take place in March, and tabled this notion on September 19, 1939, in the War Cabinet. Within two weeks the German Abwehr was aware of this plan and Admiral Raeder informed Hitler of British intentions. Hitler was not interested in countering this move at the time. Only after Raeder submitted data on the impact on German steel production in January of 1940 did Hitler gave the go ahead to thwart the British of invading that neutral country.

On an aside, Churchill in 1947 was convicted of a war crime, just that Raeder served as the stand in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.32.219 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You realize that that's utter nonsense, I hope? Churchill was never convicted of any 'war crime.'

There is no rank of 'General' in the RAF.

In addition, no-one within the British cabinet in 1939 had any notion that an invasion of Norway might ever become necessary, as the prospect of France falling - and making any invasion of Norway necessary - was considered so unlikely as to be absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Maurice Harvey was the author of "Scandinavian Misadventure," published 1990 [2]. The foreword was written by General Sir Geoffrey Howlett KCB MC. It is described by one webwriter as "..this magisterial work is detailed...in fact, too detailed with pages of explanation about behind-the-scenes political wranglings." So it could have easily had discussions including Churchill dating to September 1939. Churchill was continually coming up with ideas, good ranging to awful (the later Project Habakkuk, icefloe aircraft carriers, being perhaps a standout poster child). That did not mean his plans were always approved of by his colleagues/HM Government or implemented. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I quote "By 28 May, the Allies had succeeded in recapturing Narvik from German forces".

The related picture says Allied forces withdrew 2-3. may and Norwegian 6th Div. surrendered 5th of may.

I don't see how it is possible to recapture Narvik from GB, France or Poland... (as they apparently had withdrawn within 3rd of May)

If there is something I misinterpret, then the related picture should definately be moved or swapped with another, to ensure consistency in the timeline.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.16.250 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Allied forces did withdraw on 2-3 May and Norwegians surrendered 5 May ....at Nemsos. This was part of the Central Norway Campaign. The Northern Norway Campaign (=Narvick) continued until early June. The Allied evacuation from Narvick is not noted on this map. (i Know, somewhat confusing!) Stephen Kirrage ^{talk - contribs} 00:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

- Ah thank you Stephen. I feel somewhat idiotic, not knowing my own geography right. I read Narvik where it said Namsos, even though first mentioned is half way to the north from Namsos (and easily recognizeable)! I guess it doesn't change my arguement though, that the section should be rephrased more or less, so thank you for support there:) Oh and I guess it's right to add that the cities are called "Narvik" and "Namsos" :) (not Narvick or Nemsos) :) Or maybe they've got a different English name, which I guess is OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.16.250 (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Something wrong with casualties section.

Reading the article i found something really odd. The battle box claim that the british suffered over 1856 casualties(not dead,casualties). But only at the sinking of HMS Glorious and 2 of her escort over 1500 british sailors died. If this source its ok, this means that the british suffered less than 300 casualties in ALL the GROUND and AERIAL operations of the campaign , witch its IMPOSSIBLE. Its seems that this number (1856 cas.) should refer to british Land casualties. However this also look a little bit weird since in the battle of Lillehammer over 70% of a batalion was lost as casaulties. Could someone please check for any sources about this casualties. Not only regerding those of the british, the norwegian forces losses should be covered as well, remember that they fought for their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

See my response below. Manxruler (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits on battlebox template 03/05/2011

Dear Manxruler, iam the anon editor with the 190.118.9.11 IP. i recieved your message, at my talk page. My edits were unsourced , i admit but since iam new editting templated with ref commands , i found it rather difficult to link them. The sources i used came from the page feldgrau.com. The one regarding the german losses its from www.feldgrau.com/stats.html, this page have a table of the german losses suffered in every campaig including those of the norwegean campaign, check. The edit of the allied losses are from a different page from the site, www.feldgrau.com/norwegean.html, which in the very last part statets that the allies combined suffered 6,100 dead for all causes. I really want to cooperate with the wikipedia, but for some reason i cant create an account. I also need to know the comand to sign my edits on talk pages and discussion pages. Good bye, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.9.11 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi 190. If you want to communicate with me directly, then please do so at my talk page. As to your concern, it should be pointed out that the British casualties as they were listed only included those lost on land. that should of course have been pointed out. The other casualties listed included all casualties, both on land and sea. Derry is a good source, I'm not sure I trust feldgrau.com, and certainly not the way that page is used now, including two quite different numbers for the German casualties. See the relevant page here. Manxruler (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

- Hi, I just wanted to point out: be careful with bombastic expressions such as "impossible" here. We want it to be as factual as possible I guess :) I can also refer already to this very page: Further up this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.16.250 (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Implausible assertions

"The Allies disagreed over the additional Operation Royal Marine, where mines would also be placed in the Rhine River. While the British supported this operation, the French were against it, since they also depended on the Rhine and feared German reprisals on French soil. "

So, in 1940, the French "depended on the Rhine" for what ?? France and Germany were already at war, and even though the war was "phoney" for a while on the Alsatian front, the ability of France to ship barges up or down the Rhine to or from Alsace was already curtailed.Eregli bob (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Campaign and capitulation in Western Norway

I recently attempted some edits to the section on Western Norway, and was met by blanket deletion and scorn in the edit summary fields. I would like to state that my experience of this reaction was that it smacked of article ownership and that the user in question certainly did not assume that I was acting in good faith. This is not the way I hope that wikipedians are generally met when they try contributing to an article they haven't contributed to before. Now, I will assume good faith myself, and assume that the user Manxruler also wants this article to be as good as possible. So I will try to see what arrangement we can reach: From the edit summaries, it seems Manxruler finds it shocking that anyone would care about what a 41 (!) year old book has to say about anything. This is neither here nor there. History does not work that way. A book from 2010 is not automatically better than a book from 1971 on an historical topic, that is just not how history works. I wrote a final paragraph to the Western Norway-section, based on Wilhelm Hansteen's "Operasjonene til lands på Vestlandet og i Hallingdal og Numedal" (1971), which is part of "Krigen i Norge 1940", the 13 volume work that the Norwegian armed forces (Forsvarets krigshistoriske avdeling) published on the events in Norway, using all available military sources, and describing events in great detail. By the summaries, it would seem that Haarr's book is the source of Manxrulers totally alternative paragraph. Now, it is of course the case that Hansteen is not necessary right on all accounts just because his book is extensive. But neither is Haarr necessarily right just because his book is from 2010. If he contradicts Hansteen, Haarr is not necessarily right, he would have to argue why Hansteen's version is wrong.

Manxruler writes that Steffens evacuated his forces to Førde, and deleted the date 28 April. Hansteen writes that the remaining Norwegian forces south of the Sognefjord evacuated north across the fjord on 28 April. They did not go to Førde, but the area Skjolden-Luster-Sogndal. Steffens himself was in Førde, where there were also 500 new troops, who had not been part of the earlier campaign. There was no fighting north of the Sognefjord.

Manxruler (and presumably Haarr) writes that General Ruge's telegram on 30 April told Steffens to evacuate or disband. Hansteen writes, and directly quotes: "For krigføringen som helhet og som grunnlag for landets moralske gjenreisning senere er det ønskelig at tropper som står under Div. sjefen fortsetter striden så lenge og så aktivt som mulig." [For the war effort as a whole, and as a basis for the later moral reconstitution of the country, it is desirable that the Div.commander's troops continue the fight as long and as actively as possible.]

Steffens left for Tromsø (the night 1.-2. May, according to Hansteen), but he did not just leave. He first ordered his troops to be disbanded, order given 1 May 5am. The troops should return home and their weapons be given to the police. His subordinate, Colonel Blom, then informed the Germans, requested that the troops be allowed to return home unmolested, and informed them of where the troops were. The Germans replied that if the Norwegians did not fire, they would not fire. The troops then disbanded, unmolested by the Germans. This is not just "the campaign effectively ending", it is a capitulation. The date of 18 May is a lot later than this, and a lot later than any other sources I've seen states for Norwegian military activity in Southern Norway. If this is correct, there should be more information about it - what happened, where, why is it not more widely known? But it also seems clear that it is not regular military activity, as the Norwegian regular forces in the west, were disbanded on 1 May. Source: Wilhelm Hansteen, "Operasjonene til lands på Vestlandet og i Hallingdal og Numedal", Oslo, 1971, Forsvarets krigshistoriske avdeling, Gyldendal norsk forlag, ISBN 82 05 00121 9, pp. 208-214.

Does Manxruler still insist that this information is "wildly incorrect"? If Haarr has any sources contradicting this account, that would be very interesting, and I would love to know. What are they?--Barend (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I shall respond to your accusations, which are unfounded. Firstly, as for the book, it is 41 years old, written by a non-historian (Hansteen was an officer who became the Commanding General of the Norwegian armed forces in exile in 1942, and who did not serve in any capacity during the Norwegian Campaign). A lot has happened with regards to history research since then. Who does Hansteen quote exactly?

As for the 18 May date, that's when the Germans came across the last forces (or just officers, really) who had yet to disband, in Florø. It isn't a capitulation, it's a disbandment of the troops in that area. What Steffens ordered was a disbandment of the troops under his command, not a capitulation.

Lastly, I in no way claim ownership over anything, I just don't the best way to go about any kind of Wikipedia work is to go around using seriously old book (for which, by the way, no page numbers at all were supplied, how are we to know where the information comes from in the book?). Manxruler (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, with regards to the 30 April communication, the source says it was from the "Commanding General". Now, this usually refers to Ruge, who was the Commanding General of the Norwegian Armed Forces, but could it perhaps be Steffens, as regional commanding general? Manxruler (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That a book is 41 years old, does not make it a bad history book. I don't know where you have this bizarre notion from. Your complaints about the lacking page numbers, is what I mean by not assuming good faith. Ideally I should have provided page numbers, and now I will. But the way Wikipedia works, is not that you, Manxruler, have to control and approve all sources used for contributing to an article. That is precisely how Wikipedia does not work. If you have strong reason to believe an edit is wrong, then revert it. But just because you have not been able to verify an edit, that is not a reason for you to delete it. This is a basic Wikipedia principle.

"how are we to know where the information comes from in the book?" If you are literate, you will be able to use the detailed table of contents in the book. But by all means, I will provide page numbers from now on.

Hansteen's book is the official publication of the Norwegian army's department of war history. It is a serious work. Hansteen had at his disposal all official documents and testimony of officers involved. But again, it is not up to you, Manxruler, to approve Hansteen's book as a valid source for this article. You are not the article owner!

That there were some officers who had not disbanded in Florø on 18 May is relevant. But that General Steffens' forces as a whole disbanded on 1 May, is much more important information, as this is when the fighting was seen by both sides as having stopped. I have no interest in splitting hairs on whether it was a capitulation or not, it was definitely seen as such at the time.--Barend (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now reinstated information about the end of the fighting in Western Norway. Please do not delete unless you have clear evidence that the information I have provided, is wrong. Thank you.--Barend (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well. In almost all cases 41 year old history books are outdated, as new books with more updated information and based on further research have come along. And that is not a "bizarre notion", its a basic fact accepted in most circles. Only in a very few cases are 41 year old books still the way to go. I have never claimed that I in any way have some sort of control function, but it is a basic principle that Wikipedia should verifiable, something which includes page numbers. It's very simple: "The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found." Central to this case: specifying page, one should not expect people to go searching through the books in question. And please don't yell at me, it's not very civil. Manxruler (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hold it! It's not the AGE of a book, it's the quality of the book. For instance, John Toland's THE RISING SUN is an older work, but nothing in it has been superceded, and it remains the best general survey of the Pacific War during WW2. Also, Manxruler, you haven't read every history book, nor do I know your credentials (are you a professor of history at a university with noted laurels on historical criticism?) - and making statements like the above are just speculation. Many of the newer published works on history are often somewhat revisionist and not accepted by the academic community at large in many cases - the publishers issued them to sell books, and often scholarly content are somewhat secondary. Historical texts have to be taken on a one-by-one basis. HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

At what point in the war did the norwegian government cease to be formally neutral, and joined the "allies" ?Eregli bob (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Formally, at a government conference 8 May 1942, although in all practical terms, Norway's neutrality ended on 9 April 1940. Manxruler (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Few comments as I got reverted:
1) Template:Infobox_military_conflict: "Ranks and position titles should be omitted."
2) Its not standard practice to list more than 1 flag for commanders who led multinational forces (you can check it from countless of other wikipedia articles).
3) I don't see point including commander who doesn't seem to have made any notable commanding decisions during his 2 day command (or at least his wikipedia biography fails to mention any), but I guess its matter of taste.
--Staberinde (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

1) Correct.

2) Fine. Sounds sensible.

3) a) If you had read the bio, then you would have seen that Laake was responsible for the initial phase of the Norwegian mobilization. Did he do a less than perfect job? Sure. Did that mean he wasn't in command the first couple of days? No.

3) b) Matter of taste? Including a regional commander such as Fleischer (famed as he may be), is much more of a matter of taste. Manxruler (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it can argued that Fleischer played bigger practical role in campaign then Laake, even though he was only regional commander, but let it be like that then. Not so major issue.--Staberinde (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. In practical terms Fleischer might have played a bigger role than Laake. As may Steffens, Hvinden Haug etc. But these were regional commanders, of top importance for their area of responsibility, but they were not the top brass of the campaign as a whole. It might also be said that the defeatism of Laake (once the Germans had actually landed, that is), and his falling out with the government (who eventually forced his resignation) had a quite substantial effect on the campaign. Manxruler (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

I see the article is locked. Not sure why. Why are many of the British losses not incorporated into the text? Like many naval losses, i.e. the carrier. It makes the article unbalanced. SaintAviator (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't locked, it's semi-protected due to long-term vandalism. Could you expand on what you would like to see added, what your concerns are? Of course there are still things to do. Manxruler (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If by "the carrier" you mean HMS Glorious, then she is included in the text. Not sure what you're getting at here. Manxruler (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I just read a trashy Leo Kessler Wotan novel on the campaign, but it intrigued me, being a history buff. So I looked into the Norway campaign. IMHO its not neutral but is weighted toward the Allies. Id like to see more on how the British lost all those men at sea to German attacks expanded, and more on the other allies losses like the Polish French losses, subs etc. SaintAviator (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Well. It is of course a project under development, like all of Wikipedia. We can't add too many details to this article, though, as it's more of an overview article. In my honest opinion, the article is quite neutral, although parts of course do need rewriting. Wikipedia can't provide the level of detail one might find in novels, though. Manxruler (talk) 19:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Length

At over 134k, I would say this article is more than ready to be divvied up.
What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how one would do that. It doesn't seem terribly long to me (although I've thought about doing something with the "Fleet movements" section for a while now, it is mostly unreferenced and all). How would you going about splitting it up? Manxruler (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying to your post; here are a few thoughts (in no particular order).

How would I do it? That's a good question.

Having just waded through the article (and I'm still not finished), and finding it difficult to navigate, I think that it should be shorter - say under 80k. It is important to maintain an international perspective on this - not just a Norwegian one - look at how many nationalities are in the infobox even though it was a relatively short campaign.

I think you are on the right track about the 'Fleet Movements' section. (it might be worth looking at the ground and air sections as well). I would say that overall it's far too detailed e.g. Instead of 'HMS Renown and the destroyers HMS so-and-so, HMS so-and-so and HMS so-and-so, how about the 'third flotilla' or whatever. Another section with the same problem (excessive detail) is the paragraphs on the Altmark Incident and it's got its own article!

It's always hard to do it, but where possible fleet/squadrons/flotillas should be concentrated on, (not the movements and details of individual ships; if the action is notable, it will (eventually) have its own article - like the Altmark Incident. As far as individual vessels are concerned, mention should only made if the outcome of the campaign is affected.

To sum up, I think brevity is, or should be, the name of the game.

RASAM (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't disagree. The Fleet movements bit has been on my to-do list for some time, and the Altmark section could be shortened (although it is very important with regards to the background to the campaign). Of course an international perspective is important too, although I can't really see that that is presently missing. Will get to work on the issues in time. Manxruler (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Code Names

Why is the operation names not included? Every military operation has a code name. For this it was:

1. Plan for the military occupation of Stavanger, Bergen, Trondhjem, and Narvik. The Plan is not put into operation until the Germans have violated Norwegian territory.

2. NAVAL TASKS

   (i). Provision of cover and escort for convoys.     
   (ii). The transport in warships of troops to Stavanger, Bergen, and Narvik.
   (iii). Provision of local naval defence at Narvik.

3. OUTLINE PLAN Plan R.4 is divided into two parts known as STRATFORD and AVONMOUTH.

   (a). STRATFORD force consists of two battalions for Stavanger (Red Force), two battalions for Bergen (Blue Force), and one battalion for Trondhjem (Green Force).

   (b). AVONMOUTH force – combined British and French force of about 18,000 men.

Scope creep (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead! — Erik Jr. 16:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

With references to reliable sources, of course, Scope creep. I see you've copy/pasted above from http://www.naval-history.net/xDKWDa-NorwayR4.htm. That's an okayish source to use as a reference, although a book would be better. Manxruler (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this level of detail regarding Plan R 4, an operation which in the end was never carried out as planned, should probably go to the article actually about Plan R 4, rather than this higher-level article. Manxruler (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Pre-emptive strike?

Hitler knew the British intended to invade Norway in an attempt to encircle Germany. They had already begun laying mines in neutral Norwegian waters, which is why he had to invade before the British could seize control of the ports. (217.35.237.93 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC))

Yes, that is the story presented by the wartime Nazi propaganda. However, this version of events has been rejected by serious historians, especially in recent years, and is thus a fringe view. As for the mining, that occurred on 8 April 1940 (with the intent of provoking a German reaction), when the German invasion force had already been at sea for several days. Hence, there is no connection between the British mining and the German decision to invade, which was made much, much earlier. Manxruler (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

As Manxruler points out the the German attack could not be a response to British mines placed along Norway's coast. German planning for an occupation of Norway and Denmark began in November or December 1939. Still, as far as I understood, the German occupation of Norway had preemption as one motive. The allies (France and Britain) had real plans for a full or partial occupation of Norway and Sweden, using support for Finland as a pretext. British occupation of Faroe islands and Iceland was preemptive. --— Erik Jr. 10:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Germans had learnt of the British plans to occupy Norway in March 1940, which is why they were already on their way to the country when the British began laying mines. (109.149.224.20 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC))

What Erik says is mostly correct. There were plans on paper for the French and Brits to occupy areas in Norway and Sweden in connection with coming Finland to aid during the Winter War, plans which were dropped in March 1940, when Finland and the Soviet Union entered into a ceasefire. The German plans for a occupation of Norway dated from far back (with the Germans remembering how the World War I allies had blocked them from easy access to the sea), with serious planning taking place from 1939 onwards. The February 1940 Altmark incident led to a speeding up of that planning, as the Germans felt to an increasing extent that the Norwegian were unable/unwilling to protect their neutrality from Allied action. That incident sped up the already ongoing German planning for an invasion and occupation of Norway.

109.149.224.20, what you are saying right now is pretty much word-for-word what the Nazis said back in 1940, and no serious researchers agree with that notion. Manxruler (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Both the British and Germans had drawn up contingency plans in the winter of 1939-40 to occupy Norway to prevent the country from being used as a naval base by the other side. (109.149.224.20 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC))

And from early 1940 onwards the Germans created a plan to invade Norway. Not as a contingency plan, but as a plan to occupy Norway in order to secure the coastline, resources, railway from Sweden etc, etc. Anyway, as you can see on the top of this talk page, this is not a forum for general discussion of the Norwegian Campaign. Do you have any suggestion for, reliably sourced, information that can improve the article? Manxruler (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The article should mention that the German invasion was a defensive move in the face of British designs on Norway, and pre-emptive. The UK was occupying a quarter of the world in 1940. (109.149.224.20 (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC))

No reliable sources calls the German invasion "a defensive move in the face of British designs on Norway". British colonialism is irrelevant in this context. Manxruler (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? The UK and France would never have declared war on Germany if they hadn't huge overseas empires. (109.149.224.20 (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC))

It's completely irrelevant in this context, where you want a mention added that is not supported by reliable sources, about the German invasion being "a defensive move". Colonialism has nothing to do with that. By the way, what's up with the IP jumping? Are you 217.35.237.93 or 109.149.224.20 or who? Manxruler (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I was responding in support of 217's point. Don't forget the Blitz happened because the British had already bombed Germany for four months in 1940. (109.149.224.20 (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC))

And the Blitz is relevant now? Okay... Manxruler (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What sources say

Hans Fredrik Dahl writes about the background for Weserübung (my translation, source: Preface to 9. april by Tamelander & Zetterling, Spartacus 2001):

Germany originally wanted to keep Norway neutral. Britain and France wanted to pull Norway into the war, and needed a pretext. The first pretext was the Soviet war against Finland, that allowed an operation that could provoke Germany. After the truce in March 1940 the pretext was German threats to Norway. The German threats to Norway were real, but could not be verified by Britain because Hitler’s generals were planning in complete secret. Britain hoped that their mines in Norwegian waters would provoke a German response, which in turn would give the needed pretext for Britain to occupy Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim.

— Erik Jr. 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Magne Skodvin writes (my summary): Norwegian military strategy 1937-1940 was based on an assumption that both Britain and Germany would benefit from an occupation of the Stavanger-Bergen area to enforce an embargo on the other. “Nøytralitetsvakt” (protection of Norway’s neutrality) should ensure that the powers did not use Norwegian territory or Norwegian waters for military purposes. The German navy as early as 1937 sketched plans for setting up bases on Norway’s coast. In 1939 Britain also feared that Hitler and Stalin would make a joint attack on Scandinavia. --— Erik Jr. 17:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yep, and that does not support what 217.35.237.93/109.149.224.20 (who is the same guy, alternatively two people who both are in Bury St Edmunds and happen to be at the same talk page and in complete agreement) wants added. Manxruler (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI, Britain wanted the neutral states in Scandinavia to remain neutral, as potential allies they had little modern military capability and so would have needed substantial UK and Empire forces to defend them at a time when such forces were more urgently needed elsewhere. The British learned centuries ago that it is not worthwhile acquiring 'allies' if their acquisition actually make things more difficult for they, the British, themselves. At the time in 1940 Norway's then-most recent military experience had been obtained a year prior to Waterloo, with Denmark's only slightly more recent.

In addition, Britain had no pressing need for Norway's iron ore, as having a worldwide trading empire Britain could obtain the commodity from elsewhere. Germany, could not. Whilst the 2000-ship Norwegian merchant fleet was to become important to the Allies later, in 1939 Britain had a merchant fleet of around 12,000 ships of 100 GRT and over, and so in 1940 there was no need for Britain to seek the appropriation of Norway's fleet, for in 1940 the British merchant fleet was still bigger than all the other merchant fleets of the world combined - by a factor of around three. The British didn't suffer the large losses of their shipping until around 1941-42 during the Battle of the Atlantic, due in large part to the Germans having access by then to French ports which hadn't been foreseen in 1940.

BTW, if Britain had planned in advance an intended invasion of Norway I think you will find it would not have been the shambles it subsequently turned into, which, to some extent, was a result of the hurried nature of its planning and implementation carried out at the very last minute.

I should also perhaps point out that unlike Nazi Germany which was a dictatorship able to invade countries on a whim, Britain was a democracy with a government answerable to Parliament. Any unprovoked invasion of Norway by Britain would have been an act of war requiring parliamentary consent either in the form of Parliament itself, or of the War Cabinet. Such consent was unlikely to be given except in the most extremely extenuating of circumstances. It is also worth noting that both Britain and France had actually voluntarily gone to war in 1939 because another country had done just exactly this to Poland.

I nearly forgot. If the British had really intended to invade Norway for selfish self-interest reasons then they would almost certainly have done so much earlier, when they would only have had the Norwegians themselves to fight, rather than the Germans who's own recent military experience dated to considerably later than 1814 and the flintlock rifle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Soviet Union was not a nation

The USSR was a union of various nations, not a nation in its own right. (Bndjs (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

Well, it was a country, at least. Manxruler (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Russia is a country, the USSR was a collection of countries. The UK is not a country but England is. (Bndjs (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

Please provide a reference for this. Our article on the Soviet Union calls it a country. Besides, if not a nation or a country, what do you feel we should call the Soviet Union? Manxruler (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The USSR was a state, not a country. (Bndjs (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

Reference please. Besides, our definition of a country includes states. Also, the United Kingdom article calls the UK a country. Manxruler (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change Wikipedia's descriptions of the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, then I suggest you make entries at the talk pages of those articles, to begin with, not here. Manxruler (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I just happened upon this situation while vandal-patrolling with STiki. There is absolutely no basis for calling the USSR a "collection of countries" in this particular context. Coretheapple (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Neither the USSR or the UK are/were countries in their own right. They were unions of different countries. Norway is a country, the Soviet Union was not a country. (Bndjs (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

1. I disagree. 2. This discussion belongs, if anywhere, at the talk pages of the relevant articles (Soviet Union and United Kingdom), not here. Manxruler (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

That's correct. If your contention is that the USSR should be referred to constantly as a plural (in Wikipedia's voice) and never as a nation-state, you need to take up the matter at a higher level so that we can overhaul the entire encyclopedia. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If the USSR was a single country then 2 million Ukrainians would not have sided with the Axis. (Bndjs ([[User talk: |talk]]) 20:26, 30 October 2016 (UTC))

That's your opinion and irrelevant to this issue. You've been told what to do, if you want to embark on trying to change the way Wikipedia refers to the Soviet Union etc. There's really nothing more to say in this regard. Manxruler (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Bndjs please don't edit-war over this. This is not the best place to discuss grievances arising out of formation of the USSR. Coretheapple (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently Bndjs was a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so there's that. Manxruler (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

In fairness this account had a valid semantic point on "country" vs. "nation," but the approach they used was to make the lead inaccurate. Coretheapple (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, using the word country could work. Although that didn't really satisfy them. Manxruler (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, colloquially it's OK. But the solution is not to say that Norway resisted longer than anyone else. Come on! That's just wrong. "Nation" works. "State" is not appropriate in this context in my opinion, though accurate. "Country" could indeed refer to a subordinate entity like the Ukraine. Note Scotland. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Introducing a factual error like that was of course not acceptable. I don't think it would have been possible to reach a factually accurate solution that would have satisfied this account. Manxruler (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

USSR was not a nation in its own right

The USSR was not a nation, it was a collection of countries. Norway was the single country/nation that resisted a German invasion for the longest period of time. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:9466:24C7:CE39:69D9 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC))

This has been discussed (probably with you) already, in the section above. Manxruler (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Plan R4 - undue weight

Plan R4 now features prominently in the article lead, this may exaggerate the importance of R4. --— Erik Jr. 15:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and here's the source cited by the IP user: https://books.google.com/books?id=XIxWWhu9ARoC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=ziemke+Command+Decisions.&source=bl&ots=wZ5Ft1OrnO&sig=c7TRYBv3mg6hH1UEcXepwjxPMnM&hl=no&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqxYGl25DSAhWFjywKHSXKAa8Q6AEIQDAE#v=snippet&q=r%204&f=false. It does not support the claim in the lead (that R4 was used by Hitler as an excuse to invade on 9 April 1940). This is not the same as saying that the Germans knew the Allies were interested in involving Norway in the war, and or to say that the Allies were interested in fighting the Germans on Norwegian soil, and cut off the Norwegian sea lanes for the Germans. Manxruler (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It is also interesting how the anon user wanting to add this info, is IP jumping from edit to edit. Manxruler (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Plan R4 was one of several factors that lead to the Weserübung I guess, and some questions still remain open and a topic of further research. --— Erik Jr. 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course Hitler knew the Franco-British forces were trying to use Norway to blockade Germany, just as they did throughout (and after) World War I. (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:E813:31B7:16D5:C6A1 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC))

"Liberation from Nazi Germany"?

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The British invaded Norway first in 1940. By the time the Germans invaded the Royal Navy was already laying mines in neutral Norwegian waters. (13:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.59.143 (talk) Norway was not invaded by Britain. --— Erik Jr. 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Britain invaded Norway as part of Plan R 4 and began Operation Wilfrid before the German invasion. (86.147.59.143 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)) Sorry, but there is no point in discussing these clear facts. The British navy laid mines along the Nordland coast to block German access to Narvik. --— Erik Jr. 19:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Hitler had found out about Plan R 4 in March 1940, which is why he invaded Norway after the British had invaded the country first. (86.160.157.178 (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)) But that does not change the fact that German forces landed in Norway before Allied forces. — Erik Jr. 10:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC) In response to the British invasion. (31.49.209.119 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) Plan R 4 Plan R 4 had got to be mentioned in the lede as it is why Germany invaded Norway. The British had previously planned to invade Norway during the Winter War. In May 1940 the British also invaded neutral Iceland. (31.49.209.119 (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) There is no point in repeating this. Plan R4 was a plan, not an actual invasion. --— Erik Jr. 18:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC) It would be helpful if you two now would actually communicate here instead of simply reverting edits over and over again or filing for Administrator action. And for the records, Plan R4 is mentioned (and linked) within the main text. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, but facts are clear cut and not disputed by anyone: Britain laid mines on April 8th 1940, German forces invaded Norway early morning April 9th, allied forces landed in Norway a few days later. Plan R4 was a plan and not implemented. Did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor as respons to US invasion of Okinawa? Of course not. --— Erik Jr. 18:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) The attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor was in direct response to the Hull note, the McCollum memo, the Flying Tigers and the economic embargo. Hitler invaded Norway because the British violated Norway's neutrality. (86.160.157.153 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) There was no British invasion of Norway. Germany invaded and occupied key cities, Allied troops supported Norwegian defense against the invaders - and allied troops were welcomed by the Norwegian Government. This facts are not disputed. — Erik Jr. 19:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC) No need to get stupid about that. I think there´s no denial of facts (from my side, that is) and hopefully no mix-up in the timeline either. Hower - was Norway officially neutral at the time when Germans and British landed or not? A breach of neutrality creates tricky situations for everybody, stuff like the Altmark incident is not unimportant. Laying mines in neutral waters isn´t either, and if I remember correctly Norway protested that, at least before the Germans landed. Neutrality it is not just a POV issue, and it comes with obligations for everybody. One of the reasons for Norway were resources; keep, gain, deny. And larger plans that included Norway but weren´t for Norway. No moral high ground for either side, only for the Norwegians themselves. But the point is, again, you two, as the involved editors, should communicate; either on this talk page or your own. If you want to make things easier for you two then stop making those edits and talk to each other first. If you don´t come to agreement over facts or formulation you can also ask for more input, for example by requesting a Third opinion or asking at WP Military History. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC) The British invaded neutral Iceland, Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Iran during World War II, as well as Norway. (86.160.157.153 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) Plan R4 is part of the background to the German invasion. The British navy laid mines on April 8th, while the first German ships had left for Norway on April 3rd. There were no British or allied troops in Norway on April 8th or any earlier dates. These facts are not at all disputed. — Erik Jr. 19:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) In early 1940 the Allies approved a naval campaign designed to seize the northern part of Norway, a neutral country, including the key port of Narvik, and possibly also to seize the iron mines at Gällivare in northern Sweden, from which Germany obtained much of its iron ore. The British planned to invade Norway in March 1940 to use the ports as bases for the Royal Navy in order to encircle Germany, but the operation (codenamed Plan R 4) was postponed. The British and French had previously planned to invade Sweden, in order to assist Finland during the Winter War against the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler found out about Plan R 4, and militarily intervened as the British began Operation Wilfred by laying mines in neutral Norwegian waters. (86.160.157.153 (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) Can you please get the timeline right? There were plans yes, but only Wilfred was partly implemented when the British laid mines on April 8th. However, on April 8th the German operation Weserübung had already been in motion for several days. So obviously Weserübung could not be a response to what happened on April 8th. In any case, there were no British landing in Norway on April 8th or any earlier date. --— Erik Jr. 20:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC) While facts about the actual operations are not disputed, the background to the German invasion is complex and an entirely different discussion, and remains a topic for research by historians. Britain and Germany made paralell plans at about the same time (from late 1939) for possible operations in Norway and Sweden. Norway's neutrality was violated by both parties. It is entirely possible that Britain would have made a preemptive occupation of all or parts of Norway (and Sweden), as Britain did in Iceland. The British occupation of Iceland was friendly and tacitly welcomed. Norway was officially neutral, but tacitly leaning towards Britain so the allied effort to support Norway's defense began without a formal decision or agreement. So Norway remained officialy netural until 1941 or 1942. But Allied troops landed in Norway several days after the German invasion, so that point is not open for discussion. — Erik Jr. 20:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC) The British had planned to invade Norway and Sweden earlier, as Hitler discovered in March 1940. The comparison with Pearl Harbor does not work as the United States was neutral in name only by late 1941. Roosevelt had publicly declared war on Germany and Italy when he gave a speech confirming the shoot on sight order on 11 September. Norway was part of the Axis Powers from 1940 to 1945. (86.160.157.153 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) You are swithching topic? This is trolling. — Erik Jr. 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Your comparison with the attack on Pearl Harbor is irrelevant as the United States was in no way a neutral country. Even Churchill thought Germany and Italy should have declared war on the US in 1940 after the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. (SMcCellan (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) The German invasion was officially designed to pre-empt the Anglo-French invasion of Norway in April 1940. (86.160.157.153 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) So you acknowledge that there was no British invasion of Norway prior to the German invasion? — Erik Jr. 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC) The British invasion was ongoing when the German invasion began. Why do you think Sweden refused to help Norway in 1940? (86.160.157.153 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)) Any sources to support this claim? Any specifics? Where in Norway did British troops land? What units? What dates? --— Erik Jr. 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Page protected

I’ve fully protected the page to allow time to discuss without any further disruption to the page. I firmly believe the IPs 31.49.209.119 (talk · contribs) and 86.160.157.178 (talk · contribs) are the same editor and therefore the warning I gave to 31.49.209.119 applies to both these addresses. It must be noted that reliable sources are required to effect a substantial change to the generally “stable" text on this article. Not to mention editors must be editing neutrally without an agenda that affects the facts or quality of the article. Everyone is reminded to consider WP:DR to assist in concluding this issue. Hopefully this is resolved in the few days before protection ends, but note that any further evidence of multiple accounts being used to sway consensus or edit the article will result in immediate blocking and potential other sanctions for that user. N.J.A. | talk 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Standard Norwegian soldier .jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jewish civilian casualties?

The Holocaust in Norway says 742 Jews were murdered in the concentration camps, but this article says only 535 Norwegian civilians were killed. How does that add up? - 212.251.181.252 (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There were 535 civillian causualties as a result of the two months military campaign which this article is about.

The total amount of the entire 5 years occupation is not reflected here. 83.243.191.236 (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)