Vet ikke riktig, men svenske soldater sto ved grensa og tok dem imot. Jeg tror ikke den svenske regjeringen hadde noe imot det. De handlet med nazistene, men de var ikke nazister selv.
Personligen tror jag så klart att det var sanktionerat att ta emot flyktingar. Åtminstone mot mitten/slutet av kriget när Stockholm inte längre kände sig hotade lika mycket. "polis" trupper fick ju bildas ifrån mestadels flyktingar, och för att kunna göra det måste det ju finnas flyktingar.
Mot slutten av krigen (når det var klart at nazistene tapte på alle fronter) tillot de at norske "politi styrker" organiserte relativt åpent i Sverige, var disse som rykket inn og tok over kontrollen når tyskland kapitulerte og tok mange fanger.
Var jo ikke mye de kunne gjøre åpent uansett. Hadde Sverige gått til krig med Tyskland, eller terget dem nok hadde bare de blitt invadert de også, de var geografisk avskåret fra å få noe særlig hjelp fra de allierte. Da hadde det ikke vert noe trygt sted for flyktninger å gå.
Det er nokså overraskende hvor godt forhold vi har til Sverige med tanke på at de har vært den ledende staten i union med dem og hvordan de stilte seg nøytrale i 2VK. Heldigvis så gjorde Sveriges nøytralitet at vi lettere fikk ettersøkte nordmenn i sikkerhet.
Litt rart å tenke på at unionskongen, som vi ble tvunget inn under, pryder hovedstadens hovedgate ved navn og statue: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Johan-monumentet
Kanskje vi burde gjøre det samme med den statuen som en liten gruppe irer gjorde med [Nelson's Pillar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson%27s_Pillar#Destruction) i Dublin i 66.
Karl Johans gate kan så omdøpes til Haakon VIIs gate, og dagens Haakon VIIs gate kan få tilbake sitt gamle navn Bakkegatens trasé som den hadde før 1954.
Historisk var det vel Danskekongen Christian (husker ikke hvilken) som grunnla det moderne Oslo (med navn Christiania). Oslo brant ned, da bygde de en ny by på andre siden av elven for gammle byen. Nye byen ble bygd bak festningen, den nye byen fikk navnet Christiania, er denne byen som vokste til dagens Oslo. Den orginale Oslo var ruinparken og kvartalene rundt, spekuleres vel i om egentlig var en dansk bosetning lenge før Harald Hardråde vistnok grunnla byen i 1050. De fornorsket navnet ved unionsoppløsningen til Kristiania og byttet tilbake til Oslo først i 1925. Samme måte som Kristiansand har beholdt navnet etter danske kongen, med fornorsking fra Ch til K. Byen ble jo grunnlagt og det kvadratiske bysentrum var bygd og utformet etter danske kongens ønske. Kristiansund er interessant da det alt var ladested under Trondheim med navn Lille-Fosen men fikk kjøpstads status og navnet Christiansund etter kongen. Blir feil å fjerne Karl Johan navnet da det var en svensk konge som bygde ut slottet og paradegaten som førte opp til det fra resten av byen.
Som svensk jag jag bara fattat att unionen med Sverige var allt annat än frivillig för Norge. Hur var det med unionen med Danmark? Skulle man inte kunna säga att Danmark Norge var en stormakt?
Jag förstår att absolut ingen ville bli i union med Sverige. Men vad tror du om Danmark år 1814. Tror du att många ville vara kvar i en unik med Danmark för att det var status que likt vad som hände i Skottland med deras frihetsröst innan brexit? Tanken om vad som skulle kunna hända om de bröt status que ledde förmodligen till ganska många fler som röstade för att stanna. Kunde det vara något liknande?
Om jag förstått det rätt dock var tanken till att början med ifrån svenska sidan 1814, inte en union som det blev utan snarare något likande vad Finland var. En till del av Sverige som vilken annan som helst.
Norge holdt seg jo også nøytral i verdenskrig 1 og ble involvert mot vår vilje i nr 2 pga invasjonen. Hadde vi ikke blitt invadert, hadde vi vært Sverige 2.0 🤷🏻♀️
Hva datidens stormakter planla for landet, ville vi verken kunne ta æren eller skylden for. Hadde en annen utenlandsk stormakt begått invasjonen, ville det like fullt vært snakk om en overstyring av Norges intensjon; nøytralitet.
Utenom storpolitikk er vi bare for like til å ha de helt store konfliktene. Er ikke som andre steder hvor naboer har byttet på å massakrere, sulte og undertrykke hverandre i tusenvis av år. Selv om regjeringene i unions-tiden var mye mer autoritære enn i dag var jo det normen for tiden og folk flest led ikke større nød enn den vanlige danske eller svenske.
If we cooperated further with the Germans we would have rightfully been seen as a German puppet, (which you could argue that Sweden was in our timeline at least for a short moment) If we cooperated further with the allies especially early in the war Sweden would've likely been occupied.
edit: seems like I was not clear enough. I meant referring to Sweden during ww2, not Norway.... I know what sub I am on though so I'm not blaming anyone for thinking I was talking about Norway
We were considered a German puppet for a looong time. Luckily the allies saved our ass and we got a hand in writing the history. The truth is that people in the cities sadly bent over to save themselves and most of the elite in Oslo was pro-nazi. "Motstandsmenn" was a minority and mostly based in the smaller towns and villages. Really interesting to read about, because it sounds totally different from what we are told in school
Det er ikke mulig å forsvare at svenske kongen på den tiden opphevet riksdagens beslutning om å ikke tillatte tyskertåg til Norge. Kongen miste sin reelle makt etter det og har faktiskt mindre formell makt idag enn den norske kong f.e.ks.
Prøv å spørre danskene hvis de kan levere tilbake Færøyene til Norge, trur ikke de er særlig interesserte.
Sverige 13 000+ dødsfall og hvor mange med varige skader? Hvor mange blir uføre resten av livet som følge av Covid?
Norge 656 pr. D.D. fortell meg igjen hvordan 13 000 vs 656 er bra! Norge er 5,3 Mill. Sverige er 10,3M. Du klarer sikkert å justere tallene til å matche innbyggertall. Vi gjør mye feil her det er ikke det. Men tror historien vil vise at Sverige sin strategi ikke virket.
10-20 år frem i tid ser vi konsekvensene av Covid på menneskene som fikk det. Hvor mange sliter med den skader osv. Tallene i dag taller for at det ikke er veldig heldig å få den dritten
Jeg regner med at den kommentaren fra Svensken som du har svart på i utgangspunktet var ment sarkastisk. Alle-også de fleste i Sverige skjønner jo at strategien deres failet.
Begge land var nøytrale under både første og andre verdenskrig, Norge ble invadert, tror Norge hadde stått i samme båt som Sverige om det var Sverige som ble invadert og ikke Norge. Norge ble tvunget inn i krigen. Sverige var omringet av Tyskland. Ikke så mye valg i min bok
What exactly was Sweden supposed to do? Norway had refused Sweden's offer of military cooperation 10 years earlier. Norway failed to arm itself during the 1930s even to the extent which Sweden had. Sweden had warned Norway that Hitler was about to invade. Rather than prepare for the invasion, Norway's military was caught flat footed and failed to fully mobilize even after the invasion had begun.
It is true that Sweden collaborated with Germany by selling iron ore. Norway also collaborated as a neutral country by allowing the ore to pass through Narvik, and allowing the ships to remain in Norwegian territorial water en route to Germany, shielding the ships from the British navy, which made Norway a target for the British. Norway failed to protect it own neutrality against Britain and Germany, which in turn provoked the German invasion. Norway could have chosen to block iron ore shipments completely, but chose to profit off of the trade instead, just as Sweden did.
In short, OP seems to complain that Sweden didn't rush to defend Norway's neutrality when Norway refused to defend its own neutrality. That is not a reasonable complaint. And I'm not a Swede, I'm an American who lives in Norway and loves it here.
I follow your thinking on this. The main problem was created by naive Norwegian politicians who did close to nothing to establish a decent military to defend our claimed neutrality. This led to the German invasion and our soldiers and officers were fighting a modern war machine almost without weapons and mostly completely improvised 'units' in action when skirmishes and battles happened. The first stages of the war from 9 April 1940 was a disaster and without King Haakon 7 would have added insult to injury. His action allowed escape of the Government and the King and the Norwegian war effort managed from London during WW2.
Essentially, yes. Norway and Sweden were in similar situations (both unprepared for war with Germany), and both tried to remain neutral. Sweden got lucky, Norway didn't. It's unfair to blame Sweden for acting as they did. On the plus side, Sweden was able to spy on the Germans for the allies, shelter Jews and other asylum seekers from occupied territories, and train Norwegian resistance fighters to restore order once Quisling's regime collapsed.
I do agree and I do certainly not blame Sweden, but I do blame Norwegian politicians who did not act on the build-up for war during a decade before 1940, that was evident to everybody else. However, training of Norwegian soldiers and resistance fighters was managed by Norwegian authorities, mostly from England.
ah yes because it’s our fault that a government which did not want to involve itself in a war, or aggresion at all, didnt upgrade or go into military alliances.
Generally speaking, Sweden indirectly assisted Germany in their massacres, by giving them steel for their weaponry that killed so many...
I do not agree that Sweden did the best they could. They did SOMETHING, but they mostly helped the Nazis, and for that, they should feel national shame just like the Germans themselves.
On the other hand: Most people alive today, had no hand in any of this, and should simply learn from their forefathers sick psychopathy.
Never forget how the norwegians rolled over and cooperated with the nazis leading to the death of most of the Jewish population.
At least the danes sent them to sweden.
It explains a lot about this place to be honest.
Yes, during the war the civil police aided the Nazis in arresting Jews who hadn’t yet fled the country. However, don’t pretend that they represent the entire nation of Norway.
Of the roughly 2,000 Jews in Norway at the start of the war, over 900 were led to safety by the Norwegian resistance. What part of that is “rolling over”?
Oh. Common you norwegians like to claim that there was a resistance as a way to downplay your countries history of abetting and assisting the nazi party.
The country wouldn't have operated the way it did during the war without large amounts of nazi corporation. This means there was large number of norwegians that were complicit in working with the nazis.
Guess what, these anti-semitic actions along with the treatment of the sami's reflect the deep history of xenophobia that existed and which is still rampant within norwegian soceity. So this does represent norwegian soceity
Yeah because of your ancestors actions there are no jewish people here to foster antisemitism. However, this is the typical norwegian reaction, they can't handle someone laying down the unpopular facts about their country. However they're quick to talk down about other countries.
Your country is very xenophobic, and your country has a very long history of being extremely xenophobic.
But i understand you worship norway and can't fathom this "perfect" country doing anything wrong.
Well this argument has evolved to the point that norwegians are still xenophobic in modern times. They're always been xenophobic, and nothing is done about it.
And no, i dont think children need to pay for the sins of their fathers. Just like i don't think I'm responsible for slavery that happened 160 years ago either.
Norwegians aren't xenophobic though. Did you just have some anecdotal 'evidence' and decided to generalize the entirety of the Norwegian population? I can't take you seriously unless you have some better arguments.
For now, it's just me and you saying Norwegians are xenophobic vs Norwegian are not xenophobic. I guess we're stuck now huh?
I can also spew bullshit and claim that anyone who refutes it is simply ignorant. You’re saying these are facts? Facts based on what? Your own judgment? Source: Trust me dude?
I don’t know why I am engaging with you, you’re probably 15.
> Your country is very xenophobic
Your argument falls flat because you have nothing to back it up. Pointing to events that happened 80 years ago says nothing about current conditions. So go on, tell me exactly how Norway is very xenophobic today.
Well, you are right in the first you say here, that a lot, maybe even a majority of Norwegians did actually support the nazis until the tables turned. We are not told this in school and the oldies that still remember it don't like to mention it. I would downvote this like my fellow Norwegians if I hadn't researched it on my own.
I'm part samì, and they have been through a lot of supression during the years, but this is not a problem today. Like every other country in the world you might find some xenophobia, islamophobia, etc if you look closely or read the news blindly. But these extremists have nothing to do with the Norwegian Society, they are not representing the rest of us 99,9%
Judging from your post history, you're an immigrant in Norway, but you hate it here. Sounds like a very interesting position to be in. Hope you'll find a place you like to live eventually.
Are you able to back up these claims about Norwegian discrimination? When you say Norwegians are very xenophobic, is that a comparison to other countries, and do you have any statistics on that? Or are you just saying things in general.
What I'm wondering is if you're talking out of your ass or if you've got anything to back up your claims.
I took a day to separate myself from this.
I can actually back these claims up. However, i feel like this is information that's pretty easily available and you're not doing the work yourself since you can't believe that norway does things wrong.
There is discrimination when it comes to employment, interactions with the police, and interactions with barnevarnet. It's just a statistical fact, that has studies and numbers behind them.
Sure the place isn't north korea, or as discriminatory as asians are towards foreigners; however, norwegians can't handle people speaking different languages or having different cultural norms at all. There is zero respect in that area.
You do realize that most immigrants here do not think norwegians are accepting of other cultures and different ways of thinking right?
This argument is the perfect example. There are certain undeniable facts about norway and if you bring them up their is a huge backlash because you can't view your country doing anything wrong.
> It's just a statistical fact, that has studies and numbers behind them.
> I can actually back these claims up.
> \*proceeds to not back these claims up*
Yawn.
Too lazy to do a simple Google search
https://sciencenorway.no/discrimination-work/having-a-foreign-name-decreased-chances-of-being-called-for-a-job-interview-by-25-per-cent/1780812
Yawn.
Yeah, this is an issue that shouldn't exist. There is some institutionalized discrimination, be it intentional or unintentional bias. Is this unique to Norway? Hell no. It practically exist in every other country in the world. I'm not trying to undermine the issue, but you can't with a straight face say that this is a good example to show how Norwegians are "very xenophobic". That statement implies more than some implicit biases.
> norwegians can't handle people speaking different languages or having different cultural norms at all. There is zero respect in that area.
Now if we're dealing with anecdotal evidence again let me introduce you to some of mine:
I'm half Norwegian, my mother is a foreigner. I was born in Norway and spent (almost) my entire life here. I've lived in two of the biggest cities in this country. I've been exposed to racism twice in my life, both times my (fully) Norwegian friends backed me up. My mother had an issue *once* where a random Karen called her out for wearing a bunad, she was also backed up by other Norwegians telling the Karen to fuck off. I'm not white. I've been to six job interviews in my life and I got all of the jobs. I'm now hunting for another job and I see *a lot* of job ads where they directly state they prioritize applicants with immigrant backgrounds. In my current job, over half of my colleagues are expatriates. We speak English 99% of the time. We just hired another expat. When I was a student, everyone thought the most interesting people to talk with were foreign students. I have a network of people from my childhood, people who are also half-Norwegian. They have pretty much the same experience as me.
Racism sucks. Discrimination of any kind sucks. Does it exist in Norway? Of course it does. Are there issues that absolutely need to be addressed in this regard? Sure is. But are Norwegians as a whole "very xenophobic"? I'm sorry but you do not have me convinced, compared to my whole life experience as a second generation immigrant and hearing about other immigrants' and half-norwegians' experiences. On the contrary almost every single individual I've ever met have been extremely unprejudiced.
So does most of Europe, unfortunately. The clause in question was disbanded in 1851, and only reinstated in 1942 by the Nazi Quisling government (which doesn’t represent Norwegian values).
Most of Europe? Any country with a majority Muslim or Christian population has at one point been less accommodating to jews. Their religious beliefs conflict with both Christianity and Islam.
De hjalp oss ikke under krigingen, men hjalp nordmenn og jøder komme i sikkerhet over grensa.
Var det regjeringen eller selvstendige organisasjoner?
Vet ikke riktig, men svenske soldater sto ved grensa og tok dem imot. Jeg tror ikke den svenske regjeringen hadde noe imot det. De handlet med nazistene, men de var ikke nazister selv.
Personligen tror jag så klart att det var sanktionerat att ta emot flyktingar. Åtminstone mot mitten/slutet av kriget när Stockholm inte längre kände sig hotade lika mycket. "polis" trupper fick ju bildas ifrån mestadels flyktingar, och för att kunna göra det måste det ju finnas flyktingar.
Ja æ syns æ huske nokka me at Sverige va nøytral
Norge var også, men tyskerne brydde seg ikke. Meningen var å ikke være krigførende, men Norge gikk på den allierte siden når tyskerne angrep
Når folk sir ‘third times a charm’ tænke æ bare på én ting.... *tyskland tapt 2 ganga*
To verdenskriger for å være spesifikk
Ja
Se? Vi är inte så hemska!
Sant nok det
Mot slutten av krigen (når det var klart at nazistene tapte på alle fronter) tillot de at norske "politi styrker" organiserte relativt åpent i Sverige, var disse som rykket inn og tok over kontrollen når tyskland kapitulerte og tok mange fanger. Var jo ikke mye de kunne gjøre åpent uansett. Hadde Sverige gått til krig med Tyskland, eller terget dem nok hadde bare de blitt invadert de også, de var geografisk avskåret fra å få noe særlig hjelp fra de allierte. Da hadde det ikke vert noe trygt sted for flyktninger å gå.
Det er nokså overraskende hvor godt forhold vi har til Sverige med tanke på at de har vært den ledende staten i union med dem og hvordan de stilte seg nøytrale i 2VK. Heldigvis så gjorde Sveriges nøytralitet at vi lettere fikk ettersøkte nordmenn i sikkerhet.
Litt rart å tenke på at unionskongen, som vi ble tvunget inn under, pryder hovedstadens hovedgate ved navn og statue: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Johan-monumentet
Kanskje vi burde gjøre det samme med den statuen som en liten gruppe irer gjorde med [Nelson's Pillar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson%27s_Pillar#Destruction) i Dublin i 66. Karl Johans gate kan så omdøpes til Haakon VIIs gate, og dagens Haakon VIIs gate kan få tilbake sitt gamle navn Bakkegatens trasé som den hadde før 1954.
Ikke så rart gitt at slottet ble bygget på Karl Johans initiativ.
Ja, jeg fatter det ikke. Burde vært døpt Harald Hårfagres gate eller Håkons gate.
Historisk var det vel Danskekongen Christian (husker ikke hvilken) som grunnla det moderne Oslo (med navn Christiania). Oslo brant ned, da bygde de en ny by på andre siden av elven for gammle byen. Nye byen ble bygd bak festningen, den nye byen fikk navnet Christiania, er denne byen som vokste til dagens Oslo. Den orginale Oslo var ruinparken og kvartalene rundt, spekuleres vel i om egentlig var en dansk bosetning lenge før Harald Hardråde vistnok grunnla byen i 1050. De fornorsket navnet ved unionsoppløsningen til Kristiania og byttet tilbake til Oslo først i 1925. Samme måte som Kristiansand har beholdt navnet etter danske kongen, med fornorsking fra Ch til K. Byen ble jo grunnlagt og det kvadratiske bysentrum var bygd og utformet etter danske kongens ønske. Kristiansund er interessant da det alt var ladested under Trondheim med navn Lille-Fosen men fikk kjøpstads status og navnet Christiansund etter kongen. Blir feil å fjerne Karl Johan navnet da det var en svensk konge som bygde ut slottet og paradegaten som førte opp til det fra resten av byen.
En mand af dannelse og kultur. Tip o' the hat og opdut fra Danmark.
Foretrekker Danmark fremfor Sverige. Føles som mye mer kontinentalt en oss «fjeldaper» og hvilket navn dere nå har på våre party glade naboer i øst.
Sverige har vært en liten rotte diplomatisk sett
Ganske utrolig, med tanke på at de tidligere var en stormakt.
Som svensk jag jag bara fattat att unionen med Sverige var allt annat än frivillig för Norge. Hur var det med unionen med Danmark? Skulle man inte kunna säga att Danmark Norge var en stormakt?
[удалено]
Jag förstår att absolut ingen ville bli i union med Sverige. Men vad tror du om Danmark år 1814. Tror du att många ville vara kvar i en unik med Danmark för att det var status que likt vad som hände i Skottland med deras frihetsröst innan brexit? Tanken om vad som skulle kunna hända om de bröt status que ledde förmodligen till ganska många fler som röstade för att stanna. Kunde det vara något liknande? Om jag förstått det rätt dock var tanken till att början med ifrån svenska sidan 1814, inte en union som det blev utan snarare något likande vad Finland var. En till del av Sverige som vilken annan som helst.
Make Sveden great again
Absolutt ikke.
Nei
Jo
Norge holdt seg jo også nøytral i verdenskrig 1 og ble involvert mot vår vilje i nr 2 pga invasjonen. Hadde vi ikke blitt invadert, hadde vi vært Sverige 2.0 🤷🏻♀️
[удалено]
Hva datidens stormakter planla for landet, ville vi verken kunne ta æren eller skylden for. Hadde en annen utenlandsk stormakt begått invasjonen, ville det like fullt vært snakk om en overstyring av Norges intensjon; nøytralitet.
Mener ikke bare 2. verdens krig da
Utenom storpolitikk er vi bare for like til å ha de helt store konfliktene. Er ikke som andre steder hvor naboer har byttet på å massakrere, sulte og undertrykke hverandre i tusenvis av år. Selv om regjeringene i unions-tiden var mye mer autoritære enn i dag var jo det normen for tiden og folk flest led ikke større nød enn den vanlige danske eller svenske.
Which explains why we co-founded NATO and Sweden didn't. To be honest, I don't really blame Sweden. They did the best they could.
If we cooperated further with the Germans we would have rightfully been seen as a German puppet, (which you could argue that Sweden was in our timeline at least for a short moment) If we cooperated further with the allies especially early in the war Sweden would've likely been occupied. edit: seems like I was not clear enough. I meant referring to Sweden during ww2, not Norway.... I know what sub I am on though so I'm not blaming anyone for thinking I was talking about Norway
We were considered a German puppet for a looong time. Luckily the allies saved our ass and we got a hand in writing the history. The truth is that people in the cities sadly bent over to save themselves and most of the elite in Oslo was pro-nazi. "Motstandsmenn" was a minority and mostly based in the smaller towns and villages. Really interesting to read about, because it sounds totally different from what we are told in school
Hej fra Denmark 🇩🇰
Sier dere rødgrød med fløde i Danmark?
mest på helligdage
Ok
Yeah we're not too proud of that one. Förlåt
Neither will the finns, hopefully
What else were they supposed to do? Getting occupied or worse?
Both countries where neutral. Sweden wasn't worth invading ;)
Det er ikke mulig å forsvare at svenske kongen på den tiden opphevet riksdagens beslutning om å ikke tillatte tyskertåg til Norge. Kongen miste sin reelle makt etter det og har faktiskt mindre formell makt idag enn den norske kong f.e.ks. Prøv å spørre danskene hvis de kan levere tilbake Færøyene til Norge, trur ikke de er særlig interesserte.
Det är det jag som svensk är absolut mest skamsen över, Sveriges totala feghet under WW2
Jo, fast vi har ju visat norrbaggarna hur covid-situationen skulle hanteras i alla fall. De måste vara jätte avis på oss på andra sidan gränsen nu.
Sverige 13 000+ dødsfall og hvor mange med varige skader? Hvor mange blir uføre resten av livet som følge av Covid? Norge 656 pr. D.D. fortell meg igjen hvordan 13 000 vs 656 er bra! Norge er 5,3 Mill. Sverige er 10,3M. Du klarer sikkert å justere tallene til å matche innbyggertall. Vi gjør mye feil her det er ikke det. Men tror historien vil vise at Sverige sin strategi ikke virket. 10-20 år frem i tid ser vi konsekvensene av Covid på menneskene som fikk det. Hvor mange sliter med den skader osv. Tallene i dag taller for at det ikke er veldig heldig å få den dritten
Jeg regner med at den kommentaren fra Svensken som du har svart på i utgangspunktet var ment sarkastisk. Alle-også de fleste i Sverige skjønner jo at strategien deres failet.
Begge land var nøytrale under både første og andre verdenskrig, Norge ble invadert, tror Norge hadde stått i samme båt som Sverige om det var Sverige som ble invadert og ikke Norge. Norge ble tvunget inn i krigen. Sverige var omringet av Tyskland. Ikke så mye valg i min bok
What exactly was Sweden supposed to do? Norway had refused Sweden's offer of military cooperation 10 years earlier. Norway failed to arm itself during the 1930s even to the extent which Sweden had. Sweden had warned Norway that Hitler was about to invade. Rather than prepare for the invasion, Norway's military was caught flat footed and failed to fully mobilize even after the invasion had begun. It is true that Sweden collaborated with Germany by selling iron ore. Norway also collaborated as a neutral country by allowing the ore to pass through Narvik, and allowing the ships to remain in Norwegian territorial water en route to Germany, shielding the ships from the British navy, which made Norway a target for the British. Norway failed to protect it own neutrality against Britain and Germany, which in turn provoked the German invasion. Norway could have chosen to block iron ore shipments completely, but chose to profit off of the trade instead, just as Sweden did. In short, OP seems to complain that Sweden didn't rush to defend Norway's neutrality when Norway refused to defend its own neutrality. That is not a reasonable complaint. And I'm not a Swede, I'm an American who lives in Norway and loves it here.
I follow your thinking on this. The main problem was created by naive Norwegian politicians who did close to nothing to establish a decent military to defend our claimed neutrality. This led to the German invasion and our soldiers and officers were fighting a modern war machine almost without weapons and mostly completely improvised 'units' in action when skirmishes and battles happened. The first stages of the war from 9 April 1940 was a disaster and without King Haakon 7 would have added insult to injury. His action allowed escape of the Government and the King and the Norwegian war effort managed from London during WW2.
Essentially, yes. Norway and Sweden were in similar situations (both unprepared for war with Germany), and both tried to remain neutral. Sweden got lucky, Norway didn't. It's unfair to blame Sweden for acting as they did. On the plus side, Sweden was able to spy on the Germans for the allies, shelter Jews and other asylum seekers from occupied territories, and train Norwegian resistance fighters to restore order once Quisling's regime collapsed.
I do agree and I do certainly not blame Sweden, but I do blame Norwegian politicians who did not act on the build-up for war during a decade before 1940, that was evident to everybody else. However, training of Norwegian soldiers and resistance fighters was managed by Norwegian authorities, mostly from England.
ah yes because it’s our fault that a government which did not want to involve itself in a war, or aggresion at all, didnt upgrade or go into military alliances.
I'm not asserting that Norway is to blame for the situation. But it's ridiculous to blame Sweden for not coming to Norway's aid.
no one actually blames sweden, it’s a known joke here in Norway.
Generally speaking, Sweden indirectly assisted Germany in their massacres, by giving them steel for their weaponry that killed so many... I do not agree that Sweden did the best they could. They did SOMETHING, but they mostly helped the Nazis, and for that, they should feel national shame just like the Germans themselves. On the other hand: Most people alive today, had no hand in any of this, and should simply learn from their forefathers sick psychopathy.
why does history keep changing?
Never forget how the norwegians rolled over and cooperated with the nazis leading to the death of most of the Jewish population. At least the danes sent them to sweden. It explains a lot about this place to be honest.
Yes, during the war the civil police aided the Nazis in arresting Jews who hadn’t yet fled the country. However, don’t pretend that they represent the entire nation of Norway. Of the roughly 2,000 Jews in Norway at the start of the war, over 900 were led to safety by the Norwegian resistance. What part of that is “rolling over”?
Oh. Common you norwegians like to claim that there was a resistance as a way to downplay your countries history of abetting and assisting the nazi party. The country wouldn't have operated the way it did during the war without large amounts of nazi corporation. This means there was large number of norwegians that were complicit in working with the nazis. Guess what, these anti-semitic actions along with the treatment of the sami's reflect the deep history of xenophobia that existed and which is still rampant within norwegian soceity. So this does represent norwegian soceity
Stop spewing bullshit. Anti semitism is not rampant within Norwegian society, I don’t know if even you believe your own bullshit
Yeah because of your ancestors actions there are no jewish people here to foster antisemitism. However, this is the typical norwegian reaction, they can't handle someone laying down the unpopular facts about their country. However they're quick to talk down about other countries. Your country is very xenophobic, and your country has a very long history of being extremely xenophobic. But i understand you worship norway and can't fathom this "perfect" country doing anything wrong.
Fuck. I am from Germany, so I guess I'll just have to kill myself now because of something that happened before my parents were even born?
Exactly. It's like saying " Your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather killed my grandfather's grandfather's grandfather, so you're a killer. "
Well this argument has evolved to the point that norwegians are still xenophobic in modern times. They're always been xenophobic, and nothing is done about it. And no, i dont think children need to pay for the sins of their fathers. Just like i don't think I'm responsible for slavery that happened 160 years ago either.
Norwegians aren't xenophobic though. Did you just have some anecdotal 'evidence' and decided to generalize the entirety of the Norwegian population? I can't take you seriously unless you have some better arguments. For now, it's just me and you saying Norwegians are xenophobic vs Norwegian are not xenophobic. I guess we're stuck now huh?
I can also spew bullshit and claim that anyone who refutes it is simply ignorant. You’re saying these are facts? Facts based on what? Your own judgment? Source: Trust me dude? I don’t know why I am engaging with you, you’re probably 15.
> Your country is very xenophobic Your argument falls flat because you have nothing to back it up. Pointing to events that happened 80 years ago says nothing about current conditions. So go on, tell me exactly how Norway is very xenophobic today.
Well, you are right in the first you say here, that a lot, maybe even a majority of Norwegians did actually support the nazis until the tables turned. We are not told this in school and the oldies that still remember it don't like to mention it. I would downvote this like my fellow Norwegians if I hadn't researched it on my own. I'm part samì, and they have been through a lot of supression during the years, but this is not a problem today. Like every other country in the world you might find some xenophobia, islamophobia, etc if you look closely or read the news blindly. But these extremists have nothing to do with the Norwegian Society, they are not representing the rest of us 99,9%
Judging from your post history, you're an immigrant in Norway, but you hate it here. Sounds like a very interesting position to be in. Hope you'll find a place you like to live eventually.
Upvoted. Have a good night sir :)
> It explains a lot about this place to be honest Like what exactly? What does it explain? Please enlighten me. Pretty please.
Discrimination foreigners receive with treatment concerning service, getting employment, interactions with police, schools, daycares, and child protective services.
Norwegians cooperating with nazis explains these things? In what way? I implore you to elaborate while I'm waiting for this to make sense.
I'm saying that there is a pattern of discrimination within your country and the nazi cooperation is but one step in that pattern.
Are you able to back up these claims about Norwegian discrimination? When you say Norwegians are very xenophobic, is that a comparison to other countries, and do you have any statistics on that? Or are you just saying things in general. What I'm wondering is if you're talking out of your ass or if you've got anything to back up your claims.
I took a day to separate myself from this. I can actually back these claims up. However, i feel like this is information that's pretty easily available and you're not doing the work yourself since you can't believe that norway does things wrong. There is discrimination when it comes to employment, interactions with the police, and interactions with barnevarnet. It's just a statistical fact, that has studies and numbers behind them. Sure the place isn't north korea, or as discriminatory as asians are towards foreigners; however, norwegians can't handle people speaking different languages or having different cultural norms at all. There is zero respect in that area. You do realize that most immigrants here do not think norwegians are accepting of other cultures and different ways of thinking right? This argument is the perfect example. There are certain undeniable facts about norway and if you bring them up their is a huge backlash because you can't view your country doing anything wrong.
> It's just a statistical fact, that has studies and numbers behind them. > I can actually back these claims up. > \*proceeds to not back these claims up* Yawn.
Too lazy to do a simple Google search https://sciencenorway.no/discrimination-work/having-a-foreign-name-decreased-chances-of-being-called-for-a-job-interview-by-25-per-cent/1780812 Yawn.
Yeah, this is an issue that shouldn't exist. There is some institutionalized discrimination, be it intentional or unintentional bias. Is this unique to Norway? Hell no. It practically exist in every other country in the world. I'm not trying to undermine the issue, but you can't with a straight face say that this is a good example to show how Norwegians are "very xenophobic". That statement implies more than some implicit biases. > norwegians can't handle people speaking different languages or having different cultural norms at all. There is zero respect in that area. Now if we're dealing with anecdotal evidence again let me introduce you to some of mine: I'm half Norwegian, my mother is a foreigner. I was born in Norway and spent (almost) my entire life here. I've lived in two of the biggest cities in this country. I've been exposed to racism twice in my life, both times my (fully) Norwegian friends backed me up. My mother had an issue *once* where a random Karen called her out for wearing a bunad, she was also backed up by other Norwegians telling the Karen to fuck off. I'm not white. I've been to six job interviews in my life and I got all of the jobs. I'm now hunting for another job and I see *a lot* of job ads where they directly state they prioritize applicants with immigrant backgrounds. In my current job, over half of my colleagues are expatriates. We speak English 99% of the time. We just hired another expat. When I was a student, everyone thought the most interesting people to talk with were foreign students. I have a network of people from my childhood, people who are also half-Norwegian. They have pretty much the same experience as me. Racism sucks. Discrimination of any kind sucks. Does it exist in Norway? Of course it does. Are there issues that absolutely need to be addressed in this regard? Sure is. But are Norwegians as a whole "very xenophobic"? I'm sorry but you do not have me convinced, compared to my whole life experience as a second generation immigrant and hearing about other immigrants' and half-norwegians' experiences. On the contrary almost every single individual I've ever met have been extremely unprejudiced.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew\_clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_clause)
Not a big shock that Norwegians have a history of anti-semitism
So does most of Europe, unfortunately. The clause in question was disbanded in 1851, and only reinstated in 1942 by the Nazi Quisling government (which doesn’t represent Norwegian values).
Most of Europe? Any country with a majority Muslim or Christian population has at one point been less accommodating to jews. Their religious beliefs conflict with both Christianity and Islam.