Talk:Norwegian campaign

message: * 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)
thread_title: Additional Resources

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Links, Links, Links

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yep. It's one of the reasons why the invasion was, on balance, a mistake. Lovingboth 16:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: German occuption force

message: 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)
replies: text: See: Norwegian resistance movement Manxruler 04:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Norwegian Resistance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: An article for this now exists under Liberation of Finnmark. Indy beetle (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 1944 Re-Invasion of Norway

message: 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)
thread_title: Norwegian naval losses as portrayed in the ''Analysis'' section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Two Possibilities

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Uh, excuse me,... Poland?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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., . See also Skorpa prisoner of war camp. Orcaborealis (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Narvik campaing left out and mistake in article

message: I quote "By 28 May, the Allies had succeeded in recapturing Narvik from German forces".
The related picture File:Invasion_of_Norway.PNG 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency 

message: 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)
replies: text: See my response below. Manxruler (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong with casualties section. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits on battlebox template 03/05/2011 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Implausible assertions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Code Names

message: The USSR was a union of various nations, not a nation in its own right. (Bndjs (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was a country, at least. Manxruler (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The USSR was a state, not a country. (Bndjs (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Well, apparently Bndjs was a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so there's that. Manxruler (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, using the word country could work. Although that didn't really satisfy them. Manxruler (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Soviet Union was not a nation 

message: 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)
replies: text: This has been discussed (probably with you) already, in the section above. Manxruler (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  USSR was not a nation in its own right 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plan R4 - undue weight 

message: 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)
replies: text: Norway was not invaded by Britain. --— Erik Jr. 13:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But that does not change the fact that German forces landed in Norway before Allied forces. — Erik Jr. 10:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to the British invasion. (31.49.209.119 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Liberation from Nazi Germany"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: There is no point in repeating this. Plan R4 was a plan, not an actual invasion. --— Erik Jr. 18:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You are swithching topic? This is trolling. — Erik Jr. 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So you acknowledge that there was no British invasion of Norway prior to the German invasion? — Erik Jr. 20:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Plan R 4 

message: I’ve fully protected the page to allow time to discuss without any further disruption to the page. I firmly believe the IPs  and  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)
thread_title: Page protected

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion