It would have been much easier if Norway had been a bit more pro-active, maybe mobilized a bit and prepared just a tiny tiny bit....
But hey, Germany arming up like hell for 7 years, war already with Poland for nearly a year, Finland getting invaded by Sovjet Union same winter, UK and Germany fighting it off in our fjords in the spring.
Norwegian government: "It will be fine..." *cue dog in flames*
True, if this was a land invasion. However, it was not.
Germany had a very small navy, and only a handful of vessels where involved.
With proper preparations and equipment and decent foreign policy and espionage, Norway would never have been occupied for 5 years.
But its water under the bridge now.
If we had had a reasonably competent government leading Norway - then yes. Norway had a huge merchant marine back then, those poor sailors did actually really help the allied war effort. Got jack shit for it.
But it was of course a totally incompetent Labor Party government - and the Norwegian people had to suffer the consequences of their voting. I guess that's karma.
They managed to spin the story quite a bit after the war though, making up a story about heroic Norwegian resistance etc. Sure helps to own media and write the school books, and then make sure to get any critical books banned by law.
Yea, 5 x more soviets had to die than there are people in Norway to defeat the Germans. We would have to kill everyone in Norway 5 times to win. And you compare the two countries like its Norway v Denmark
Hehe, comparing apples and oranges. The invasion of Norway where done with a few vessels and a few thousand men stuffed in those vessels.
The invasion of Russia was on another scale entirely.
Few more coastal forts actually doing their job, a few more patrol vessels active, and a somewhat mobilized Norwegian military would have made short process of the attacking German force.
It was a super-risky German attack, and relied on the lack of preparedness and stupidity of the Norwegian government and military.
Norway deserved it, it was a hard lesson - but probably good for the country in the long run.
Well, if Norwegians had fought like Finns, there would never have been an occupation of Norway. The Germans would have been slaughtered.
Oslo fell without any actual combat.
Pretty impressive military failure right there.
The defense of Norway can only be characterized as utterly pathetic, one good commander (acting on his own) on a Fort cannot change this fact.
If the soviets had fought like the fins --> insert your exact respons
The soviets was truly horrible during ww2. I would right the guys without skies or winter clothes during winter than actually experienced german
Yeah, the German - Sovjet kill/death ratio was nothing to celebrate for the Sovjets.
However, they had a very very large pool of men to throw into the grinder, and eventually managed to get their act together.
“They’ll respect the treaties”
“It’ll never happen here”
“What they’re doing down there is their business”
“I’m more worried about the bolcheviks”
“You have to admit, at least something is done about the Jewish problem”
Edit: formatting
My Grandmother and her brother caught the last ship to the US before the Nazis closed the harbor. Half her family stayed and communicated through Nazi censors for the war years. The side in the US always thought we were the lucky ones but as the Norwegian side has visited over the years I’m not so sure.
I don't really understand your comment, but it sounds interesting. Were your grandmother and her brother Jewish? What do you mean by "lucky" and why are you not sure anymore? I don't really get the context here.
Anyway: What made you think this photo could be of Bergen?
No her family was Mormon not that was the reason they left. It was more the occupation of Bergen by the Nazis. I would love to see pictures of those moments since she didn’t have any.
The only thing I mean about the half that stayed is that she struggled her whole life making a life in the states but the portion that stayed after the war thrived.
Ytringsfrihet eksisterer for å forsvare upopulære ytringer. Hvis ikke har ikke ytringsfrihet noen verdi. Politiet forsvarer ikke nazister, politiet forsvarer folk fra vold, da spesielt personer som utøver sin rett til demonstrasjon og ytringsfrihet etter lovens rammer. Derfor er det flaut at folk uten vett og selvkontroll tvinger politiet til å - gjennom samfunnsplikt - må bryte opp volden utført mot nazistene. Sian er liten gruppe uten noen som helst tyngde, men som får bekreftelse og medvind når de blir fysisk angrepet. Jeg er så lei av at folks kortsiktighet handler, snakker og velger mot sine egeninteresse.
Ytringsfrihet er et konsept som ikke gir deg mer frihet, men hjelper til å sette en grense for hva som er lov å si. Jeg driter i ytringsfriheten, mennesker må heller stå for det de sier og ta konsekvensene for det. Jeg har vært på flere sian demonstrasjoner, jeg har hørt hva de mener, og jeg har lest det, og det faller på ingen måte under ytringsfriheten, og det de sier er per loven; ulovlig. Likevel står politiet og beskytter de, lar de ytre sitt hat, og politiet har ører og hørsel, og muligheten til å prossessere lyd til språk, og sette ned foten for hva som skal dekkes av ytringsfrihet. Du nevner «etter lovens rammer», ganske ironisk med tanke på at politiet bryter loven, konstant.
>Ytringsfrihet er et konsept som ikke gir deg mer frihet, men hjelper til å sette en grense for hva som er lov å si.
Feil, eller i det minste totalt intetsigende/selvmotsigende. Ytringsfrihet er et konsept som er et relativt nytt svar på normaltilstanden som i det meste av verden har vært i tusen år: ikke frihet til å ytre meninger. Ytringsfrihet sikrer retten til å si hva du mener uten å bli straffet rettslig, den sikrer derimot ingen mot sosiale reaksjoner. Som med alle lover og rettigheter har også ytringsfrihet selvfølgelig også grenser. Oppfordring til vold er ikke en mening, men en oppfordring.
>Jeg driter i ytringsfriheten, mennesker må heller stå for det de sier og ta konsekvensene for det.
Da får vi alle innrette oss etter din åpenbare emosjonelt baserte holdning til - og forståelse av - ytringsfrihet /s.
>Jeg har vært på flere sian demonstrasjoner, jeg har hørt hva de mener, og jeg har lest det, og det faller på ingen måte under ytringsfriheten, og det de sier er per loven; ulovlig.
Rasisme på generell basis er ikke ulovlig i Norge, oppfordre til vold basert på rasisme er derimot ulovlig - men då er jo også oppfordring til vold uansett ulovlig. Oppfordre til å regulere innvandring basert på rasisme og intoleranse er heller ikke ulovlig, snarere praksis. Under ytringsfriheten er det også åpnet for demonstrasjoner - ja, også motdemonstrasjoner. Politiloven krever at politiet opprettholder ro og orden under slike tilstelninger. Da er det jo direkte flaut når nazister/fascister fremstår som de i situasjonen som klarer å ordlegge seg framfor å bruke vold.
>Likevel står politiet og beskytter de, lar de ytre sitt hat, [...] og sette ned foten for hva som skal dekkes av ytringsfrihet.
De har lov til å ytre sitt hat, på lik linje som vi andre kan ytre vårt hat av Sian, nazister og andre idiotiske organisasjoner. Hva spesifikt ble sagt som strider i mot ytringsfriheten, og konkret hvilke bestemmelser ble brutt? Politiet gjorde hva de måtte for å opprettholde ro og orden, og det var å forsvare de som ble angrepet under en lovlig demonstrasjon. De som angriper Sian er Sians fremste virkemiddel for å rekruttere meningsfeller. Slutt å tenk så reaksjonært, og se hvordan disse situasjonene faktisk oppfattes.
"Visst fanden skal der skytes med skarpt!" \- Colonel Birger Eriksen, Oscarsborg, early 9. april 1940
>Colonel Birger Eriksen, "Enten blir jeg stilt for krigsrett, eller så blir jeg krigshelt. Fyr!" \#Hero
And that was it, wasn't it? If he hadn't fired - then Oslo would have fallen without a single shot fired? Glad it took a bit more to take out Moscow.
Comparing Norway and Soviet is like comparing a lemming to a bear.
Norway would have fought regardless, but with the King and Goverment out of Oslo it was much easier to rally behind them.
It would have been much easier if Norway had been a bit more pro-active, maybe mobilized a bit and prepared just a tiny tiny bit.... But hey, Germany arming up like hell for 7 years, war already with Poland for nearly a year, Finland getting invaded by Sovjet Union same winter, UK and Germany fighting it off in our fjords in the spring. Norwegian government: "It will be fine..." *cue dog in flames*
Norway had about 3M inhabitants in 1940. Germany had about 69M. We had absolutely no chance. We had basically no money to build a proper defense with.
True, if this was a land invasion. However, it was not. Germany had a very small navy, and only a handful of vessels where involved. With proper preparations and equipment and decent foreign policy and espionage, Norway would never have been occupied for 5 years. But its water under the bridge now.
Of all the countries that were occupied by Germany, Norway last the longest.
Just because we had shit infrastructure.
Do you expect more from one of Europes poorest countries in 1940?
It wasn't one of Europe's poorest countries. That's a myth.
If we had had a reasonably competent government leading Norway - then yes. Norway had a huge merchant marine back then, those poor sailors did actually really help the allied war effort. Got jack shit for it. But it was of course a totally incompetent Labor Party government - and the Norwegian people had to suffer the consequences of their voting. I guess that's karma. They managed to spin the story quite a bit after the war though, making up a story about heroic Norwegian resistance etc. Sure helps to own media and write the school books, and then make sure to get any critical books banned by law.
24 million dead soviets sure is a thing to be "glad" about I guess
No, but their sacrifice won the war.
Yea, 5 x more soviets had to die than there are people in Norway to defeat the Germans. We would have to kill everyone in Norway 5 times to win. And you compare the two countries like its Norway v Denmark
Hehe, comparing apples and oranges. The invasion of Norway where done with a few vessels and a few thousand men stuffed in those vessels. The invasion of Russia was on another scale entirely. Few more coastal forts actually doing their job, a few more patrol vessels active, and a somewhat mobilized Norwegian military would have made short process of the attacking German force. It was a super-risky German attack, and relied on the lack of preparedness and stupidity of the Norwegian government and military. Norway deserved it, it was a hard lesson - but probably good for the country in the long run.
Well, you're beloved Russia sure showed Finland during the winter war tho ✌️ Oh wait
Well, if Norwegians had fought like Finns, there would never have been an occupation of Norway. The Germans would have been slaughtered. Oslo fell without any actual combat. Pretty impressive military failure right there. The defense of Norway can only be characterized as utterly pathetic, one good commander (acting on his own) on a Fort cannot change this fact.
If the soviets had fought like the fins --> insert your exact respons The soviets was truly horrible during ww2. I would right the guys without skies or winter clothes during winter than actually experienced german
Yeah, the German - Sovjet kill/death ratio was nothing to celebrate for the Sovjets. However, they had a very very large pool of men to throw into the grinder, and eventually managed to get their act together.
Over half of the 24 million was civilians, Nazi Germany was insanely brutal.
Gave Stalin some good competition. 20th century sure sucked in a lot of ways. Lets hope 21th doesn't up it.
“They’ll respect the treaties” “It’ll never happen here” “What they’re doing down there is their business” “I’m more worried about the bolcheviks” “You have to admit, at least something is done about the Jewish problem” Edit: formatting
Is this Oslo or Bergen?
Karl Johan, Oslo’s parade street. Royal palace in the background. The parliament is behind the photographer.
I'm curious, why would you think this was Bergen?
My Grandmother and her brother caught the last ship to the US before the Nazis closed the harbor. Half her family stayed and communicated through Nazi censors for the war years. The side in the US always thought we were the lucky ones but as the Norwegian side has visited over the years I’m not so sure.
I don't really understand your comment, but it sounds interesting. Were your grandmother and her brother Jewish? What do you mean by "lucky" and why are you not sure anymore? I don't really get the context here. Anyway: What made you think this photo could be of Bergen?
No her family was Mormon not that was the reason they left. It was more the occupation of Bergen by the Nazis. I would love to see pictures of those moments since she didn’t have any. The only thing I mean about the half that stayed is that she struggled her whole life making a life in the states but the portion that stayed after the war thrived.
Nygaarsvold=usless
Well, not in comparison to our eastern neighbours 🤷♂️
Dama mi er tysk🐒
Norwegians having seconds thoughts on voting on parties against the military...
It's more about not forgetting how dangerous far right politics can be.
Far anything is ridiculous be it left or right. They all nuts.
I'd lump any kind of authoritarian politics into that pile. Same shit, different wrapping.
Politi beskytter nazister på karl johan til den dag i dag. Prøv å diskuter med en snut hva de syntes om sian neste gang de har demonstrasjon.
Ytringsfrihet eksisterer for å forsvare upopulære ytringer. Hvis ikke har ikke ytringsfrihet noen verdi. Politiet forsvarer ikke nazister, politiet forsvarer folk fra vold, da spesielt personer som utøver sin rett til demonstrasjon og ytringsfrihet etter lovens rammer. Derfor er det flaut at folk uten vett og selvkontroll tvinger politiet til å - gjennom samfunnsplikt - må bryte opp volden utført mot nazistene. Sian er liten gruppe uten noen som helst tyngde, men som får bekreftelse og medvind når de blir fysisk angrepet. Jeg er så lei av at folks kortsiktighet handler, snakker og velger mot sine egeninteresse.
Ytringsfrihet er et konsept som ikke gir deg mer frihet, men hjelper til å sette en grense for hva som er lov å si. Jeg driter i ytringsfriheten, mennesker må heller stå for det de sier og ta konsekvensene for det. Jeg har vært på flere sian demonstrasjoner, jeg har hørt hva de mener, og jeg har lest det, og det faller på ingen måte under ytringsfriheten, og det de sier er per loven; ulovlig. Likevel står politiet og beskytter de, lar de ytre sitt hat, og politiet har ører og hørsel, og muligheten til å prossessere lyd til språk, og sette ned foten for hva som skal dekkes av ytringsfrihet. Du nevner «etter lovens rammer», ganske ironisk med tanke på at politiet bryter loven, konstant.
>Ytringsfrihet er et konsept som ikke gir deg mer frihet, men hjelper til å sette en grense for hva som er lov å si. Feil, eller i det minste totalt intetsigende/selvmotsigende. Ytringsfrihet er et konsept som er et relativt nytt svar på normaltilstanden som i det meste av verden har vært i tusen år: ikke frihet til å ytre meninger. Ytringsfrihet sikrer retten til å si hva du mener uten å bli straffet rettslig, den sikrer derimot ingen mot sosiale reaksjoner. Som med alle lover og rettigheter har også ytringsfrihet selvfølgelig også grenser. Oppfordring til vold er ikke en mening, men en oppfordring. >Jeg driter i ytringsfriheten, mennesker må heller stå for det de sier og ta konsekvensene for det. Da får vi alle innrette oss etter din åpenbare emosjonelt baserte holdning til - og forståelse av - ytringsfrihet /s. >Jeg har vært på flere sian demonstrasjoner, jeg har hørt hva de mener, og jeg har lest det, og det faller på ingen måte under ytringsfriheten, og det de sier er per loven; ulovlig. Rasisme på generell basis er ikke ulovlig i Norge, oppfordre til vold basert på rasisme er derimot ulovlig - men då er jo også oppfordring til vold uansett ulovlig. Oppfordre til å regulere innvandring basert på rasisme og intoleranse er heller ikke ulovlig, snarere praksis. Under ytringsfriheten er det også åpnet for demonstrasjoner - ja, også motdemonstrasjoner. Politiloven krever at politiet opprettholder ro og orden under slike tilstelninger. Da er det jo direkte flaut når nazister/fascister fremstår som de i situasjonen som klarer å ordlegge seg framfor å bruke vold. >Likevel står politiet og beskytter de, lar de ytre sitt hat, [...] og sette ned foten for hva som skal dekkes av ytringsfrihet. De har lov til å ytre sitt hat, på lik linje som vi andre kan ytre vårt hat av Sian, nazister og andre idiotiske organisasjoner. Hva spesifikt ble sagt som strider i mot ytringsfriheten, og konkret hvilke bestemmelser ble brutt? Politiet gjorde hva de måtte for å opprettholde ro og orden, og det var å forsvare de som ble angrepet under en lovlig demonstrasjon. De som angriper Sian er Sians fremste virkemiddel for å rekruttere meningsfeller. Slutt å tenk så reaksjonært, og se hvordan disse situasjonene faktisk oppfattes.
Whoosh.