Talk:Operation Weserübung

message: To put it mildly, any Norwegian with a slight semblance of historical interest would probably take this article in its previous form as an insult -- without there being as much as a notice of the total lack of info on the military events of Weserübung in Norway -- not even the sinking of the heavy cruiser Blücher on April 9 is mentioned; nor is the two month long campaign... (compare with, eg., the Polish September Campaign, as regards breadth of coverage for an even shorter campaign, although the latter is of course of singular interest as it "opened" WWII).
Wikipedia being what it is, this is of course not a complaint addressing the lack of info as such, but the missing disclaimer of same lack -- which in this case must be said to have been misleading to a novice reader. --Wernher 20:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More info on Norwegian Campaign in the works...

message: The 'listbox' of WWII theatres places Weserübung in the Baltic states. Needless to say, this is unconventional geography, at the least, so I have put a comment questioning this in the relevant article. I suggest Scandinavia as the name of the theatre. --Wernher 22:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The misunderstanding was quickly fixed – a tribute to Wikipedia. --Wernher 01:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, you can see Scandinavia annoted as "Baltic" in some English-language works, however, this does not seem to be common in more recent works. As usual, the locals can not change such a bad habit. /Tuomas 03:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that definitions of the Baltic region contain Scandinavia, which is OK; there have been trade relations within this greater region for a thousand years or so. But the three Baltic states should not be confused with the larger region. --Wernher 09:53, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

text:  There are rare instances when editing a talk page is necessity; this is one of them. I have replaced all links to "List of World War II theaters and campaigns" with a link to the page it moved to: List of theaters and campaigns of World War II, to avoid double-redirects. Thanks.—Chidom talk  18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway now a Baltic state...

message: Just a short note: Heydrich as a Luftwaffe fighter pilot is mentioned misc places on the 'web, and a couple of years ago I read somewhere (now, if I only could remember which book...) that he was one of those landing at Kjevik (Kr.sand) at Wesertag. He also flew some recon missions from Sola (Stavanger) over the UK, before returning to Berlin in May. Some proper refs will have to be digged out. --Wernher 10:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Re the mention of Heydrich

message: # Reinstating the former version of the intro paragraph where the details of Weserzeit are kept out of the main paragraph body makes the prose float better, and (re)fixes/repairs some of the prose which had been somewhat grammatically mutilated.
# Changing the note markers from this¹ and this² to this* makes the notes significantly more visible, and reduces editing work as well as helping avoid goofs when adding/removing notes.
# The fact of the Fornebu landing being the ...first paratrooper attack in history... is conveyed more clearly to the reader if the lk txt of the Fallschirmjäger lk is the general English language word for that type of troops.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernher (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 September 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: see the thread Descending (Wehrmacht) soldiers... below. --W—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernher (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 September 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Rationale for misc edits 2 Sep 2004

message: Regarding the disagreement over using the term paratrooper vs Fallschirmjäger in the following sentence in the article:
:German airborne troops landed at Oslo airport Fornebu, Kristiansand airport Kjevik, and Stavanger airport Sola – the latter constituting the first TERM1 (TERM2) attack in history...
As said attack was the first ever (in history) made by airborne troops descending in parachutes, I argue that the general English language term for such troops should be used as TERM1. TERM2, if present, should be used for specifying the particular type of paratroopers employed on this occasion. From The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, 1983, reprinted in 1989 as part of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary () we have:
:paratrooper, n. Mil. a member of an army infantry unit trained to attack or land in combat areas by parachuting from airplanes. [PARA(CHUTE)+TROOPER]
This seems to indicate that paratrooper is, indeed, the general English language term. If anyone wants to comment on this "editing controversy" (?), you're welcome to. --Wernher 20:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you suggesting that we perhaps transpose the two terms? -Joseph (Talk) 21:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
Yes, that would definitely be better, I think, i.e. putting the German word in parentheses following the general English term. The German term is of course also referred/linked to very visibly in the paratrooper article, but the solution you mention would inform readers of the specific German term directly. BTW, the Fallschirmjäger article seems to indicate that the G. term was/is used for WWII G. paratroopers exclusively -- is that the case? Are today's Bundeswehr's paratroops (if any) called otherwise?  --Wernher 14:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Transposition performed. I think they do still use the term. I'll have to check and modify that article accordingly. -Joseph (Talk) 19:58, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
In german the the word Fallschirmjäger is used for all paratroopers regardless of era and nationalityNevfennas 22:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Descending (Wehrmacht) soldiers...

message: *It's common practice not to have multiple links to the same location within an article.  Perhaps the phrase simply needs to be reworded to match your criteria here? Oberiko 23:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article linking

message: At Operation Weserübung/temp I've relocated some text I originally had for the Norwegian Campaign.  I'll integrate it here later. Oberiko 13:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why all the redundancy? Couldn't the Norwegian Campaign be the main history page and Operation Weserübung concern the German plan for the operation? That would seem the most logical. — RJH 02:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I put it here. The temp article contains my first draft for the Norwegian Campaign article, but I thought it was to focused on Weserubung so I started over.  Instead of simply deleting the old one, I put it in the temp just in case someone might find something useful in there. Oberiko 02:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I meant why all of the redundancy in this article of material that more properly belongs in Norwegian Campaign. In the Invasion of Norway section is a big long list of content that "should" be included here, but is really more appropriate for the Norwegian Campaign page. I added a merge tag to that part of the text, but somebody then deleted it. But I don't see a good argument for keeping that list here. Thanks. — RJH 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Temp article

message: These articles seem to be almost entirely redundant with each other. In reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, it appears we should avoid using the operational codeword (in this case Weserübung); but Norwegian Campaign is a bit misleading (since Denmark was part of Weserübung) and because there is no clear agreed-upon term for this offensive.  Also, more articles link to this article rather than Norwegian Campaign. On the other hand, Norwegian Campaign seems to be a longer and better structured article. --Leifern 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Denmark was captured soley due the fact that it would allow the Luftwaffe airbases close to Norway.  It was never really an objective in and of itself. Oberiko 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: To Leifern: We should have in mind, though, that Norwegian Campaign describes the entire campaign including the allied efforts, while Weserübung was the German invasion as such. That's the reason I haven't suggested such a merge myself; I think both articles might have a place here. --Wernher 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but even so, the two have an enormous amount of redundancy. If you look at Operation Barbarossa, you'll see this includes the Soviet preparations as well as the German plans. I'm not opposed to two articles, but the distinction has to be clear and redundancy minimized. --Leifern 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. This was also discussed above and I believe the consensus was to keep both articles, which I also support. What could be done to minimize redundancy? I was thinking of crosslinks between the two articles. One can jump directly to a section by linking thusly: German Plans. Cheers Jbetak 03:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't need to merge the two articles, but we do need to separate them better. I think that the Norwegian Campaign article should be an article dealing just with what we in Norwegian call simply "Felttoget" - "the Campaign". Template:Campaignbox Nazi occupation of Norway includes all the battles of the Campaign (those created thus far at least...), but also the various occupation events. A pure campaign template would be nice, use the abovementioned template as a starting point. We shouldn't merge the two articles, just clean them up a bit. Get the Danes out of Norwegian Campaign, they belong under Operation Weserübung and move most of the pre-planning suff to Weserübung too, leaving a short summary and a link like: "main article: Operation Weserübung". I totally agree that Norwegian Campaign should deal mostly with the actual campaign, there's more than enough material for that to work. Manxruler 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's not my area, I'll sit back. There's good material, but the organisation does need review and discussion. I've applied a new template, mainly to highlight the overlaps. It does duplicate aspects already in the WWII & Norway box but also includes Swedish, Danish and Finnish topics: there was a fair amount of interlinking after all. Keep it if it's useful. Also have a look at the main Template:World War II: it lists Operation Weserubung as the main article for the campaign (as do other articles: take a look at the "what links here" tab). Maybe a new article to record the invasion of Denmark and thus separate it. Folks at 137 14:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying, we totally need a new "Norwegian Campaign" template, the Occupation of Norway template is an awful mix of events from the campaign and from the occupation. I'll support a new template, and help make it a good one. Manxruler 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As this last merge proposal has led to no debate at all, and this subject has already been extensively debated TWICE before with the conclusion not to merge I say we remove the whole "merge proposal" sign and focus on improving and separating the the two articles better. I'll get working on both articles as soon as I have some spare time. Manxruler 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem stems from the lack of a good History of Norway during World War II article, which can be the summary of all things Norway while the "children" articles can focus on the specifics. Oberiko 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If I had had the time I would have done something about it. When Christmas comes I might be able to take care of this issue. Merging is certainly not a solution here. Manxruler 05:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Norwegian Campaign 

message: This section has a lot of useful infomation but is currently in the form of a very long list and could use to be cleaned up. --Peter Robinett 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Norway - Concise timeline 

message: This is a minor and insignificant point, but it keeps me up at night. In the section "Timeline", the last point says:
"Norway capitulated on 10 June 1940, two months after Wesertag, this made Norway the invaded country which withstood the German war machine for the second longest time. Only the Soviet Union provided the Germans with a more prolonged fight."
To me, at least, the parallel is not valid. In the first place, Norway eventually capitulated, and the Soviet Union did not. And again, if the author is instead reffering to the time between the start of the conflict and the conclusion of a peace, then Great Britain technically fought the Germans for a longer period than even the Soviet Union, thus giving them (the Germans) the more "prolonged fight".
Again, I apologise for bringing up such a minor issue, but I feel that it had to be mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SdKfz (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, even though UK proper was never invaded. Some of her colonies were, though. But the question of surrender is a complicated one. Personally, I would rank Yugoslavia, and possibly Greece, as two non-surrendering countries as well... Asav 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greece was invaded by Germany 6 April 1941, was overrun and the government had to evacuate by the end of May . Yugoslavia was invaded April 6th 1941 and signed an armistice on April 17th  . Then you have to include the fact that the Norwegian government only capitulated the combattant forces in mainland Norway (on 10 June). The Norwegian state never capitulated, the Government and armed forces able to fight from other places (mainly Britain) continued to do so. If you want to nitpick some more and include British colonies well then you have to include Norwegian colonies and conclude Norway was never totally invaded by Germany. The bottom line is as stated that Germany had to fight for two months to gain controll of Norway. The Soviet Union held on longer and were to my knowledge the only ones to hold on longer (I haven't checked all invaded countries). I think the sentance should be reworded to make it better, but the main point is still corect.Inge 13:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The point I'm making is that only the Soviet Union managed to withstand a Nazi German invasion for more than two months. They, of course, turned the tables on the Nazis and counter-invaded them, but that's besides the point. I'm not talking colonies and resistance movements here, but regular armies within states that had been invaded by the Germans. Poland: a bit over a month; Denmark: a couple of hours; the Netherlands: 5 days; Belgium: 19 days; France: 6 weeks; Yugoslavia: 11 days; Greece: 25 days. Norway: 63 days. Do the math, Norway resisted the longest of all the nations conquered by Nazi Germany in World War Two. I'll edit to make that clearer and avoid any confusion. Manxruler 05:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Misleading Statement 

message: The citation for the casualty figures (341 German, 6100 Allied) takes you to the site Feldgrau, but when you read the Feldgrau article and come to the section on the Blucher, you see, "as a result, the German ship rapidly rolled over on its side and sunk, taking nearly 1,000 German troops with it, including some Gestapo officials and other administrative personnel intended for the military government of Norway (the HQ of 163.Infanterie-Division was also aboard, and was also mostly lost)."  The Feldgrau article concludes with a section on casualties by saying that "German forces reported that 5,636 soldiers, sailors, and airmen never returned from the Norwegian campaign."  This is the source used for the allied casualty figure of 6100.  It's at http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html.  Gaintes (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't imply that. It merely doesn't list everything just yet. Manxruler (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty Figures Error? 

message: It is usually stated that Germany invaded Norway to stop the british from cutting off the flow of iron ore. This is, as far as i've been able to discover, wrong.
The interesting thing is that the motivations for the campaign appear to be split. The Allies wanted to cut off iron ore exports. Germany, on the other hand wanted access to the Atlantic for their kriegsmarine.
The german navy didn't really get to fight in wwi, because they were locked up in the baltic sea. By seizing Denmark and Norway, they got bases for attacks into the Atlantic. Of course, after the defeat of France later that summer, Germany got even better bases there.
Nowhere have I heard any first accounts documenting that the iron ore export was important to the German decision making. The germans even blew up the export facility in Narvik when they had to evacuate the city.
So, the interesting thing is that both belligerents wishes to take Norway, but for different reasons. Rodnebb (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations for battle were mixed 

message: Plan R4 was actually cancelled, since the Royal Navy commanders misinterpreted the movement of German warships as a break-out into the Atlantic and instead initially only sortied with warships leaving the troops (due to be deployed immediately under Plan R4) back in the UK. See e.g., Hitler Strikes North. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the execution of Plan R 4 was promptly started" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Proposed title creates a conflict with other articles' scopes, as shown by Srnec and SnowFire. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 20:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation Weserübung →  – The current article title was obscure before the creation of a Wikipedia article at this title, as you can see from the ngram.It's not possible to get an ngram of the entire proposed title The proposed title appears to be more common even into the present day. The current title is also not recognizable to the average reader who is not versed in WWII codenames. Judging from what I've read it is most common for sources to mention this topic with some variation of the proposed title, for example ""Germany's Invasion of Denmark and Norway", "Germany invades Denmark and Norway", "Invade Norway and Denmark", "German forces invaded Norway and Denmark", "Germany suddenly invaded Denmark and Norway", "Invasion of Norway and Denmark by Germany" etc. I would also support Invasion of Denmark and Norway as a more concise title. 
(t · c) buidhe 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 12 May 2023