As I understand it, after the war and hungry for vengeance, Norway executed the Nazi-appointed leader, Quisling, along with 30something others guilty of war crimes or treason. In addition to this, thousands were imprisoned / fined for coloration.

"Had it coming" or not, the trials and punishments strike me more of vengeance than justice. I'm curious, how are these events view in Norway today?

In the real world 2 wrongs sometimes do make a right

That depends. The execution of Quisling and the top leaders in the NS i think is viewed fairly possitive. People like police chief Jonas Lie wanted to contiune to fight in Norway because he knew that when the war was ended his days would be numbered. He was one of the most hated people in Quislings goverment, perhaps second only to Quisling himself. Jonas Lie most liekly drank himself to death on a farm after the war had ended and he and some friends had taken refuge there and where negoiating with the resistance about a surrender. One of the men there, Sværre Riisnæs had been chief of justice in Quislings gouverment and actually managed to fake himself so insane that the case against him had to be dropped and he got sent to a mental institute instead. After getting released from there he actually spent some time in a monestery in Sicily :lol:

However, i think something that people look back on with a certain shame is the treatment of soldiers who voluntered to fight on the eastern front, and especially front line nurses. After the war about 400-500 nurses who had served in the German Red Cross got convictions for working with the enemy. And while "poor working class men" had gotten sentenced for fighting on the eastern front, almost noboddy got sentenced for profitereing from the war. Those who made money from working with the Germans got away easily, and a large part of Norwegian industry colobaderated with the Germans making supplies for the German Army.

Also right after the war there was a large hatredt towards those who had worked for the Germans and the NS. Sentences giving right after the war where stricter then those given later, as people got more of a "distance" between it.

Today i guess it still is a tocuhy subject. Those who fought on the eastern front are viewed more mildly. 4898 of them got sentenced for "Treason towards the country" instead of their actions in the Germany army. They usually lost their voting rights for a period of years and where forbidden from working in gouverment positions.

Those who where nurses on the easter front have later been given a "formal apology" and today i dont think anyone has any kind of resentment toward them. Event those who fought as soldiers on the eastern front are viewed much more favorebly then those who worked with the Germans in Norway providing supplies,weapons,ratting out resistance members and such.

I'm sorry if this seems like along list of babble that makes no sense. We had a lecture about it not long ago but i don't have my notes here.

Volum; what's the Norwegian view today of the "tyskerunger"-situation (children of German soldiers stationed in Norway and Norwegian women)?

As I understand it, after the war and hungry for vengeance, Norway executed the Nazi-appointed leader, Quisling, along with 30something others guilty of war crimes or treason. In addition to this, thousands were imprisoned / fined for coloration.

"Had it coming" or not, the trials and punishments strike me more of vengeance than justice. I'm curious, how are these events view in Norway today?
This guy, Henry Rinnan, and his gang represent 40% of the people executed post-WWII in Norway; 83 murders ascribed to them, and about 1000 cases of torture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rinnan

Well, I think the Norwegians and Danes (in a similar situation to Norway during WWII) in general viewed the nazi informants and collaborators with endless disgust and their lust for revenge was first and foremost targeted at them after the occupation ended. While a relativly small number of Norwegians and Danes chose to fight for Germany at the Russian front, at least they did not betray their own countrymen like the informants did.

Thousands of Danes deemed enemys of the Nazi leadership, were either executed or sent to the concentrationcamps during the occupation - often with the help from informants turning in their own.

Of course it it difficult today to pass some sort of moral judgement on those who initiated and carried out the executions of the Nazi collaborators. You really need to understand the context of the events and what a devastating war Europe had just witnessed. It is not without merit that the Nazi leadership today is regarded as one of the most sinister and ruthless regimes to ever have existed in recorded history.

Today i guess it still is a tocuhy subject. Those who fought on the eastern front are viewed more mildly. 4898 of them got sentenced for "Treason towards the country" instead of their actions in the Germany army. They usually lost their voting rights for a period of years and where forbidden from working in gouverment positions.

Those who where nurses on the easter front have later been given a "formal apology" and today i dont think anyone has any kind of resentment toward them. Event those who fought as soldiers on the eastern front are viewed much more favorebly then those who worked with the Germans in Norway providing supplies,weapons,ratting out resistance members and such.

That's really irrational, as anyone fighting for Germany, anywhere, was equally helping them. It took the german defeat on the eastern front to collapse the german army and end the Nazi regime! No german defeat there meant that Norway would never be liberated.

That's really irrational, as anyone fighting for Germany, anywhere, was equally helping them. It took the german defeat on the eastern front to collapse the german army and end the Nazi regime! No german defeat there meant that Norway would never be liberated.
Except, God forbid, the liberation would be the kind the Soviets were offering...

Volum; what's the Norwegian view today of the "tyskerunger"-situation (children of German soldiers stationed in Norway and Norwegian women)?

The attitude now is mostly regret, a lot of the "tyskerungene" have received some compensation, and I believe that even some of their children have gotten some compensation from the state due to discrimination. They still have a higher degree of suicide and mental illness according to a show that I saw some time ago, however.

I think you guys went too soft on Quisling, he should've been tortured until his mind exploded from sheer pain and agony. If some dude betrayed my country to ruthless nazi, that would be one of the first things done as soon as the nazi got away.

Volum; what's the Norwegian view today of the "tyskerunger"-situation (children of German soldiers stationed in Norway and Norwegian women)?

Shame and regret; it's seen as one of the worst aspects of post-war history in this country.

That's really irrational, as anyone fighting for Germany, anywhere, was equally helping them. It took the german defeat on the eastern front to collapse the german army and end the Nazi regime! No german defeat there meant that Norway would never be liberated.

Thats true. Many spent time in Allied or Soviet captivity before returning to Norway being sent to prison again. The point it is that while those who fought on the eastern front got sent to prison and got shunned from society almos to this day noboddy ever thinks about places like Kongsberg that produced weapons and munitions for the German Army. In the big corporations it was almost impossible to find someone that was resbonsible and so they got away easily.

Volum; what's the Norwegian view today of the "tyskerunger"-situation (children of German soldiers stationed in Norway and Norwegian women)?

The attitude now is mostly regret, a lot of the "tyskerungene" have received some compensation, and I believe that even some of their children have gotten some compensation from the state due to discrimination. They still have a higher degree of suicide and mental illness according to a show that I saw some time ago, however.

Shame and regret; it's seen as one of the worst aspects of post-war history in this country.

Basically this. They have gotten a formal apology from the state, but the only ones who have gotten finacial compensation are the so called Lebensbornbabies. After the war their mothers got sentenced. Their kids lost most of their rights and usually their mothers where forced to give them away. They got sent to mental institutions or children homes (and back then they where no plesant place to be), lost their citisenship, and got no financial support from the state or their parrents.

Other "Tyskerunger" have lost their cases for compensation both in the Norwegian court system and in the European Human Rights court.

Except, God forbid, the liberation would be the kind the Soviets were offering...
Exactly. Fighting for Germany wasn't nice, but there were cases, such as in Estonia and Finland, where it was just a desperate attempt to maintain freedom from the Soviets, who were clearly winning the war. Now someone from Norway who volunteered to fight in the East in 1941 I wouldn't forgive, but 1944? That's a little tougher.

Exactly. Fighting for Germany wasn't nice, but there were cases, such as in Estonia and Finland, where it was just a desperate attempt to maintain freedom from the Soviets, who were clearly winning the war. Now someone from Norway who volunteered to fight in the East in 1941 I wouldn't forgive, but 1944? That's a little tougher.
Norway had a land border with the Soviet Union all the time, even if it is above the Arctic Circle. Concerns about "Bolshevism" were pan-European.

Norway had a land border with the Soviet Union all the time, even if it is above the Arctic Circle. Concerns about "Bolshevism" were pan-European.
Actually Norway did not have a land border with the Soviet Union until the conclusion of the Continuation War, when the Petsamo area was detached from Finland. And just because people were concerned about Bolshevism across Europe does not excuse active collaboration with the Nazis to fight it when the Nazis showed every sign of being victorious.

Actually Norway did not have a land border with the Soviet Union until the conclusion of the Continuation War, when the Petsamo area was detached from Finland.
Hm...:scan: My bad!:blush:

Hm...:scan: My bad!:blush:

Norway worrying Soviet occupation in 1944 is absurd--how could Soviet travel all the way on the frozen coast via land is beyond my imagination.

Norway worrying Soviet occupation in 1944 is absurd--how could Soviet travel all the way on the frozen coast via land is beyond my imagination.
I'm sure people thought worrying about Nazi occupation - considering Germany pretty much had no navy - was foolish too. Same in Crete. Stuff that shouldn't have worked for Germany did several times, why not Russia? Besides, they could always come through Sweden.

I'm sure people thought worrying about Nazi occupation - considering Germany pretty much had no navy - was foolish too. Same in Crete. Stuff that shouldn't have worked for Germany did several times, why not Russia? Besides, they could always come through Sweden.

Well, that way it opens WWIII in no time.

Well, that way it opens WWIII in no time.
It would be more like a continuation of the second. It was planned for though. I suggest you google Operation: Unthinkable. Churchill was prepared for Stalin to push into Western Europe, even if Roosevelt wasn't.

Actually, Finnmark (the northern most area of Norway) was briefly occupied by the soviet union after the war. They left peacefully, however.

Actually, Finnmark (the northern most area of Norway) was briefly occupied by the soviet union after the war. They left peacefully, however.
You mean; realised they couldn't hold onto it, so left peacefully.

Norway worrying Soviet occupation in 1944 is absurd--how could Soviet travel all the way on the frozen coast via land is beyond my imagination.
Well, they did. As Finland sought and got terms with the Soviet Union, in 1944 they found themselves at war with Nazi Germany, which had 200.000 men in northern Finland, on the Murmansk Front. With their Finnish allies gone these troops retreated into Norway, into the "Finnmark". And the Red Army went after them, eventually occupaying a large part of the Finnmark, the Varanger Peninsula, and the major town in the region, Kirkenes. It's definately one of the less publicised campaigns of WWII.

Kirkenes, was actually only beaten by Malta when it came to the joy of being bombed.

You mean; realised they couldn't hold onto it, so left peacefully.

They would have had absolutely no problem holding on to it if they had wanted to, in terms of raw power and logistics. The western Allies would have had to go to full-blown war to dislodge them, and partisans would have been a non-issue since almost the entire population was evacuated already.

However, this would have immediately and badly soured their relationship with the western Allies, a price they were obviously not ready to pay. Especially since holding on to Finnmark would have gained them basically nothing which they did not already have. Arctic or sub-arctic real estate with little or no population, little (or badly damaged) infrastructure, and little or no industry? Not a shortage of that in the USSR. Strategic position? Nah, they already had the Kola peninsula next door. The only thing they could have gained would be to deny NATO (which did not yet exist) a moderately useful strategic position in the future. Obviously not a priority.

They would have had absolutely no problem holding on to it if they had wanted to, in terms of raw power and logistics. The western Allies would have had to go to full-blown war to dislodge them, and partisans would have been a non-issue since almost the entire population was evacuated already.

However, this would have immediately and badly soured their relationship with the western Allies, a price they were obviously not ready to pay. Especially since holding on to Finnmark would have gained them basically nothing which they did not already have. Arctic or sub-arctic real estate with little or no population, little (or badly damaged) infrastructure, and little or no industry? Not a shortage of that in the USSR. Strategic position? Nah, they already had the Kola peninsula next door. The only thing they could have gained would be to deny NATO (which did not yet exist) a moderately useful strategic position in the future. Obviously not a priority.
The Soviets also voluntarily departed the Danish island of Borgholm waaay down in the south of the Baltic. Certainly they could have held it as an advanced base right up under the nose of the NATO-to-come, had they decided to.

The USSR evacuated quite a few places actually, but they did so to avoid conflicts they couldn't win - the USSR was much weaker at the end of WWII than most people realise - rather than risk calling the West's bluffs. Iran is the most notable, an area that was most definitely of major strategic importance to Russia.

Russia wanted to defend itself, it was not seeking power for power's sake. Finnmark was relatively useless and would have provoked Norway and Sweden, so they left it. Iran was extremely important, but they couldn't hold it against Britain and America, which most certainly would get involved to keep the Soviets out of it, so they withdrew. It's amazing how threatening most people seemed to find the USSR at the time, when all of its moves were actually signs of weakness and fear.

It's amazing how threatening most people seemed to find the USSR at the time, when all of its moves were actually signs of weakness and fear.

I have argued many times that the USSR at the end of WW2 was not the unstoppable colossus of communist propaganda, but rather a nation streched to absurd levels. It could not even dream of engaging the USA in a fight.

I have argued many times that the USSR at the end of WW2 was not the unstoppable colossus of communist propaganda, but rather a nation streched to absurd levels. It could not even dream of engaging the USA in a fight.
The USSR was probably incapable of fighting Britain at the end of WWII, let alone the US, which Churchill almost realised. There's a reason it took several months to organise an invasion of Manchuria, and it had very little to do with transport. Stalin had to find a way to raise a tonne more troops, and his invasion of Manchuria was a defensive move to keep the US or Kuomintang from gaining access to that industrial might.

However, invading Soviet Union would make the Western anti-war dissent skyrocket, thus satisfying Lenin's world revolution scenario.

However, invading Soviet Union would make the Western anti-war dissent skyrocket, thus satisfying Lenin's world revolution scenario.

I would never suggest that actually invading the USSR would be a good idea. However, knowing how weak they were, one can't help but wonder why they were allowed to keep so much of Europe under their despotic rule.

I would never suggest that actually invading the USSR would be a good idea. However, knowing how weak they were, one can't help but wonder why they were allowed to keep so much of Europe under their despotic rule.

Attacking Soviet possession in Eastern Europe IS war with Soviet Union, thus making the Western dissents skyrocket.

I would never suggest that actually invading the USSR would be a good idea. However, knowing how weak they were, one can't help but wonder why they were allowed to keep so much of Europe under their despotic rule.
The USSR would have fought to keep Eastern Europe. Kicking them out of Korea was possible, but a war over Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would have resulted in an all-out war, and the USSR could potentially have held on and bled them dry. Especially considering the pro-Soviet sentiment then taking effect, especially in Britain.

The West could prevent Soviet expansion, they really couldn't roll them back from places they already occupied in force. The Soviets did have one major advantage after all, and that was troops on the ground.

The USSR would have fought to keep Eastern Europe. Kicking them out of Korea was possible, but a war over Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would have resulted in an all-out war, and the USSR could potentially have held on and bled them dry. Especially considering the pro-Soviet sentiment then taking effect, especially in Britain.

The West could prevent Soviet expansion, they really couldn't roll them back from places they already occupied in force. The Soviets did have one major advantage after all, and that was troops on the ground.

Well, many area was under Soviet occupation yet they retreated. From Manchuria, Northern Iran, Eastern Austria, etc.

The USSR would have fought to keep Eastern Europe. Kicking them out of Korea was possible, but a war over Germany, Poland, or elsewhere would have resulted in an all-out war, and the USSR could potentially have held on and bled them dry. Especially considering the pro-Soviet sentiment then taking effect, especially in Britain.

The West could prevent Soviet expansion, they really couldn't roll them back from places they already occupied in force. The Soviets did have one major advantage after all, and that was troops on the ground.

I don't know. Natuarally they would not give up all of Eastern Europe without a fight; countries like Ukraine and some others were doomed anyway. But I always felt that the Western Powers (read the USA) could have taken a firmer stand wrt to countries such as Czechslovakia, which had a democratic regime destroyed by the USSR and the czech fifth column. Would Stalin put up a fight (and commit literal suicide) over that? I doubt it.

Attacking Soviet possession in Eastern Europe IS war with Soviet Union, thus making the Western dissents skyrocket.

Ideally there would be no need to fight, just establish firm limits for Soviet imperialism. They would fight over those limits if they were too restrictive, but fact is they got an area of "influence" (complete dominance) much bigger than their actual power would otherwise guarantee.

I don't know. Natuarally they would not give up all of Eastern Europe without a fight; countries like Ukraine and some others were doomed anyway. But I always felt that the Western Powers (read the USA) could have taken a firmer stand wrt to countries such as Czechslovakia, which had a democratic regime destroyed by the USSR and the czech fifth column. Would Stalin put up a fight (and commit literal suicide) over that? I doubt it.
There was no way the Soviets were evacuating Germany, they were too frightened it would turn around and bite them on the arse. Poland was likewise gone. Czechoslavakia is a borderline case, but I don't see Stalin giving it up due to its potential use as a base for attacks on his other territories. Albania could have been saved for the West.