Talk:War children/Archive 1

Text moved here from elsewhere
I have moved material here that was originally overwritten onto How to start a page by 80.213.32.137, since this appears neither to be a copyvio or an attempt at vandalism. This is a controversial subject, with lots of writing needed on this and related topics.-- The Anome 22:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes the subject are controversial. And all those children that were sent to other countries for adoption, are those not 'War children' also?

There were quite a number of such children sent from Germany to other countries. But the text here completely lacks any information about the largest transfer of children in the history of mankind! Those who were sent from Finland to Sweden (and a smaller number to Norway) after the war.

Related topics
Related topics:

Children of SS "eugenics" programs in Scandinavian countries?

Well in Sweden there are none - since the program mainly was about forced sterilization.

Children of German soldiers in these and other invaded countries

-- The Anome 22:19, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Article title
I dont like this title, seems that the kids were Nazis themselves. Moving to Children of the Nazism. Muriel 11:55, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that 'children of the nazism' is correct english, it certainly sounds strange to me. 'children of nazism' would be better but still not quite right. What do the children call themselves? Secretlondon 12:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think is very nice like this. Dont know what they call themselves. Cheers and congrats for the sysophood Muriel 12:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The appellations "Nazi children" or "NS children" are historic as used popularly and officially, for example in Norwegian government papers from London, during the WW II and after. It was part of the winners' stigmatization of the losers to glue the offspring to the Nazism. Today it's important for these children to accept the history and this appellation in order to get free from the traumas. Kluwer Nov. 14, 2003


 * I agree with Kluwer: historically, the most correct title for this article would be "Nazi child" (BTW, note singular form as per Wikipedia policy) -- this is the term used in at least some of the affected areas (parts of occupied Europe with fraternization between civilians and Nazi-German soldiers). People of this distinction who have appeared in the media in Norway (an affected area) have used the term for themselves, probably since it remains, for good and for bad, the clearest identification "label" after all these years of its derogatory use. --Wernher 13:59, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree, "Nazi child" is a clearly misleading title. The children themselves do not necessarily embrace any ideology by the definition of the article. "Nazi child" could be the title of an article about the children sent to war in the Volkssturm maybe. I would not care whether this is common use somewhere, no English-speaking country has been under Nazi occupation and this term would be undue import. "Lebensborn child" may be unambiguous. "Nazi child" might be made to be a disambiguation page. --Orzetto 13:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Lebensborn
As part of Lebensborn, also children with aryan features from Poland and elsewhere were kidnapped and raised in German families. Most of those children never returned to their parents (well, sometimes it was impossible, since their parents are already dead). szopen


 * If you can give a cite for this, please stick this in the article. -- The Anome 20:26, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * IPN is Polish government institutions aimed at tracking nazi and communist crimes against Polish Nation.
 * Another source which estimates that 200.000 Polish children were kidpnapped
 * estimates that 50.000 thousands were kidnapped


 * If you are blonde blue-eyed German and you suspect that you are Lebensborn off-spring, chance is that you are Pole. szopen


 * Historic articles give light or shadow to the past, also morally spoken. Informative articles on the Nazi children and the German soldier children will necessarily include blame on the postwar establishment of the winners who permitted ostracism of innocent persons. An article on kidnapped Polish children throws blame on the Nazis. Two different periods are scrutinized and different ideologies are blamed.


 * But why make a mixture ? Why imitate the Norwegian academic historians who mix German soldier children and general war children ? Does the postwar morally correct Western establishment need protection from the Nazi children ?


 * The kidnapped Polish children deserve a separate article, as do the Nazi children. Kluwer Nov. 29, 2003

Why separate the Norwegian & Polish children? They were both part of the same attempt by the Third Reich to use eugenics to create a master race, whether it was via encouraging the birth of children to racially pure SS or other German military and Norwegian women, or by kidnapping Polish children who had all the desirable characteristics. Both children were raised and/or adopted out to suitable families during the heyday of Lebensborn. I agree that children of Nazi leaders deserve a different section -- the issues they face are different, though equally complex.

Article title, II
In an attempt to put too many eggs into one basket, we have an article with a way too wide title. In fact, it covers two separate issues, only superficially related: Children of Nazis and Lebensborn. Therefore I suggest to split the article in two accordingly. 10 days for voting should be enough. (Warning: please don't propose titles with synonyms of "persecution". Let's speak about "fate" (which may and may not involve persecution).) Mikkalai 18:29, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Article title, III
"Children of Nazis" are children who are mute about their destiny in the post-war democracy. Nazi children, NS children or Second Generation Nazis are mental survivors of the Humanist denazification campaign after 1945. The Nazi children carry the will of a European traditionalist continuum, the very reason why I wrote the article "Nazi Children" some months ago. But the title was quickly changed by others, and here we are with discussions.

The traditionalist attitude among the outspoken NS children becomes clear by reading Eystein Eggen's The Boy from Gimle. It will be interesting to see the choice of title made, if not both titles will be used for different articles.

"Lebensborn" is a bad title for the German Soldier Kids since the most among them who have raised their voice live in Norway where no real Lebensborn homes existed. Kluwer Apr. 06, 2004

I agree it is 2 separate questions. People who were born or adopted because of the Nazi racial programme & descendents of people who became wealthy or powerful under Hitler (or in some cases shortly after) & may not be as de-natzified as one would wish (for example a man accused but not charged with being the 2nd man in McVeigh's Oklahoma bomb van was the grandson of a minister in Hitler's cabinet & the son of a postwar democratic cabinet minister). It is 2 entirely separate problems.

Neutrality
The German article about Lebensborn says their were nine Lebensborn homes in Norway. I think it is excessively described here how badly the Norwegians treated the children. The German text just reports that there was discrimination and that the Norwegian Primi Minister apologized in '98. The actual Lebensborn program is not covered with enough detail here. And I think that sentences like " The winners did nothing to rescue the Nazi children from absorbing the guilt." (which I deleted) show that someone who contributed to this article did not want to informa but to bias. Get-back-world-respect 22:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove dispute messages before you reach a consensus at talk. I still think that this article is not written neutrally. The introductory sentence is about "children of the members of Nazi or Fascist parties established before or during World War II." However, the article only seems to be about children of NSdAP members, except for a note about a son of Mussolini. Nearly all external links are to scandinavian groups of "nazi children", none to a neutral source. There is one further link to a private page with messy layout that wants "to provide the contemporary German high school student with a thorough explanation of the events that defined the Holocaust and the National Socialist ideology that created it", as if the topic was not treated in German schools. I do not think that it is neutral to start the second paragraph "Although innocent of any war crime". Furthermore, "The children read the map and did what was expected of them." is a dubious statement. Did all of the children act in the same way? What did they do that was expected of them and by whom? I also dispute that all of them "lived in an inner exile until the late 80s". The book title "Die Kinder der Täter" has no value here as it is not translated. The article has littel information about Lebensborn itself, but four times as much about Lebensborn in Norway, where "No documented Lebensborn breeding home existed", an information contradicted by the German page. Comparing the mistreatment of Lebensborn children to genocide is ridiculous. This article looks to me as if it was mainly composed by few personally involved people, often using anonymous accounts. No offense, but this needs to be rewritten. Get-back-world-respect 12:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is full of incomplete articles. That's the way the process of creation works. A person adds what he knows. Another one add more or corrects the first one, etc.
 * If you can improve it - do it. If you don't do anything useful to the article, the note will be removed in a week. 192.73.228.4 17:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am ok with incomplete articles. I am not ok if incompleteness is due to the personal interests of the main author and if it leads to a bias. I am not interested enough to spend much time on this page but unless you can reach a consensus here you cannot remove the note. Plus, an anonymous should not remove such a not in any case. Get-back-world-respect 20:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Anonymous writers have just as many rights as anyone else, Get-back-world-respect. That's the idea behind wikipedia - anyone can contribute, in any fashion. -- StellarFury 20:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I would also like to note that the redirect from Lebensborn to here is inappropriate since this article does not really cover Lebensborn but children of Nazis mainly in Norway. An article about Lebensborn should explain the program in more detail and not only focus on its "products". Get-back-world-respect 20:40, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I would also like to see a separate Lebensborn article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have now made a first hack at splitting off the Lebensborn article from this one. The major problem seems to be the Norwegian use of the term "Lebensborn" to refer to the children of German soldiers, which apppears to be a misnomer. -- The Anome 15:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * The neutrality of this article is disputed, probably because the Norwegians feel they are put in a bad light. Living in Norway myself, I know that the description given here is quite accurate. It's not correct that all the children were subjected to physical torture, but the majority probably were. Anyway, I see no reason why this article should remain labeled as not being objective. The treatment of the Lebensborn children in Norway is one of the world's forgotten atrocities, and an article about it will obviously be ugly.

Kathryn of Terra 06:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Well, this is probably adding to the controversy, but.......... I'm half Norwegian ancestry - and have cousins from the old country who used to come over and visit. I remember hearing the adults - those that fought in WW2 - talking about the Nazi's having breeding houses in Norway, and that they'd force Norwegian virgins of "Aryan" looks into them, to be bred by "Ayrian" stormtroopers. A truly nasty thought........ I really do hope that this was just a rumor for all parties concerned, but it's bugged me ever since.

Real debate
Realities of the WW II and its aftermath are controversial subjects. There were at least two opponents during the war. One of these can not endlessly write the history or exclusively interpret the history. Get-back-world-respect claims neutrality. He or she says that "someone who contributed to this article did not want to inform but to bias". I was the one who wrote the article on the Nazi children. I am a Nazi child and i claim no neutrality. That does not mean that I wrote a bias. My opponent on this subject should learn to respect a different view, not exclusively define what is neutral and correct. On controversial subjects different views must appear clearly. But stop to make the Nazi children suspicious. For God's sake, 60 years have passed. Kluwer, 19th of June 2004

Children of Nazi Party Members
I think this should read Nazi Officials or Nazi Party Officials Children as my Grandmother is a Naziparty members child but I doubt anyone knows her or her parents as party membership was in the millions.

Mussolini's Brother
Why he is mentioned here? He was a pianist. In 1948 he was in a jazz group in Ischia. He was then active in Rome. In 1959, 1960 and 1961, he and is band "Romano Mussolini All Stars" toured the world: USA, CAnada, Australia etc etc. Not a bad life, no discrimination. He doesn't fit. His doughter is not in the Italian Parliament, Alessandra Mussolini. --pippo2001 23:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lebensborn?
I see this discussion took place a year ago or so, but I am a little amazed at the problems concerning the name for the children of German soldiers in occupied Norway.

In Norway the term Lebensborn is most commonly used to describe children of Norwegian mothers and German fathers (...)

This is a wild claim, sorry. These children (now elderly adults) were earlier referred to as tyskerunger, translating as "German-kids" or maybe "Kraut kids", a derogatory term (still quite polite compared to the popular collective term for their mothers, "German-tramps" (tyskertøs )). As a result of the later recognition of their widespread post-war abuse, the more diplomatic term krigsbarn (War-children) came into use and is now the generally accepted form. I strongly doubt they've been called Lebensborn much more than a short period following the end of the war.

Anders.
 * Gentlemen, were not German officers allowed to live with their wives in occupied countries? --Anglius 21:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Not in norway. Norwegian women, married to German men was exiled(?) to Germany, same with their children. A Norwegian man married to a German waman was OK.

JHPM: Just a side comment, concerning the German officers; they were allowed to live with their wifes as long as the marriage was allowed by German authorities. At the end of the war the wifes were deported to Germany or the marriage was annulled by local authorities.

Major update
Since this discussion took place so long ago, and the article about the fate of the children in Norway was pretty far off (and decisively POV IMO), and since I've also updated the Lebensborn article, I've made a major update here. I'm not comfortable of mixing children of nazi leaders and the fate of the Norwegian Lebensborn children on the same page, but it's still there. BTW, I'm also the one who did the updates as ano 2-3 days ago. -- Steve Hart 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

ugh
Tor Brandacher, spokesman for the War Child Organisation Lebensborn, describes cases like these: "Everybody hated them, everybody beat them, everybody sexually abused them, everyone urinated on them. Every perversion known to man was performed on them. One boy was raped by nine men, who then urinated on him to clean him up. Another woman told me that when she was four, and in a foster home, she would be hung up inside a barn and when the farmer needed oral sex he just opened the door and helped himself. In a children's home in Trysil, youngsters were force-fed until they vomited, and were made to eat the vomit." Frankly I highly suggest we toss that bit of tripe as the overactive imagination of a "spokesman" who founded his own group. Much as I'm sure it's physically possible to hang a child upside down for a few years and just "help yourself" to oral sex whenever you want, there's rape erotica for a reason. If nobody other than Brandacher supports this claim, it gets removed.

On a lighter note ''A fictional account of a Norwegian NS child starred a five or six year old actress. In the climatic scene, the child has decorated herself in a necklace made of Norwegian flags, having overheard that with the war over, all will be forgiven. She is slapped across the face for her troubles.'' should probably list what movie that is, since "Fictional account" makes it sound like a Fanfic hosted on Geocities Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And reverted. It's strange how anos will remove entire sections without leaving comments. I look forward to whoever did the editing to post documentation on this talk page.
 * I also removed the movie section since the title of the movie is missing. It could be reinstated later. Steve Hart 20:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The title of the Norwegian 1981 movie is "Liten Ida" (Little Ida). See no:Liten Ida and IMDB:Liten Ida. Eddi (Talk) 09:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag removed
There has been no post here for three months so I've removed the tag to help clear the backlog on Category:NPOV disputes. If anyone disagrees, please state your case on this page and then replace the tag. Tyrenius 02:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No disagreement Steve Hart 01:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation
Sorry, I don't edit wikipedia particularly often but the following paragraph appears to be both biased and and uncited.

''What worse is, many of these innocent children - several younger than five years of age - were after the war used in medical experiments similar to those performed on Jewish children in Nazi concentration camps. These experiments were carried through by Norwegian scientists for the CIA and have long been hidden. The CIA hoped to find a drug that they could use on enemy soldiers to make them talk. They did not succeed, but some young children to Norwegian mothers and German fathers died during these experiments.''

I'm sure that no one would disagree that "What worse is" but it is still POV and should be removed, also this paragraph makes wild claims about CIA experimentation which is hardly comman knowladge. I think this paragraph should be removed if a citation cannot be found. Kripcat 08:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. This topic has been discussed before, with multiple edits and reverts. I've now added a section on the matter of medical experiments, which did make national headlines in Norway and even som international, which I believe is reasonable NPOV, factual and properly cited. Feedback appreciated Steve Hart 01:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Page move
As I suggested some time ago, I've now moved the page to a new name, War children. I'll be adding content, particularly on war children in canada. At the same time I've splitted off content about children of nazi leaders into a separate article, Descendants of Nazi Officials (in progress). Steve Hart 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And today??
Best mr. Hart! I think it is realle wrong to remove the link to Klüwers home page. And for wrong reason: Professor Klüwer is promoting all other wars children, but not himself.I 1995 he promoted the case of the norwegian war children into the nowegian parliament. Eigth years later Eystein Eggen to State Scholar, as "a symbol of an entire generation". After your removal of the link to Klüwer, ther articcle is left with mr Klüwers opponents, stand ins for their ageing parents, the old naziz of Norway, who became very much upset when Klüwer et co in 95 got honour from the gouvernment, because mr. Klüwer has all the time been a staunch opponent to the oldtimers suppression of their own children. Kind regards from Göte, a name from the Faroes way out in the Atlantic.
 * Actually, if you had read on you would have noticed that I changed my mind and included the link, this time to the main English page, see the section Further Reading in the article. However, I'm no fan of links to websites maintained by editors, in particular personal home pages. On your comment, I have nothing against Mr. Klüwer. But even if his struggle is just his claims needs to backed up by reliable cites. Steve Hart 22:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Content layout
This fate of the war children is a heated subject, as witnessed by earlier editing. As I re-arranged the article a few weeks back, I deliberately created the section General fate of the mothers and the war children  (for WWII war children in Europe) for such heat-related issues, in hope of keeping remaining sections geared towards agreed upon facts, not feelings. I propose we follow such a layout as the article expands. Steve Hart 02:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Land of the Nobel Peace Price
"His claims need to be backed", mr Hart writes 14. of June, about article founder Klüwer. Here are some backing: 1) The Norwegian National Assembly on the 8. of May 1995 unanimously declared its regret for the shadow over the lives of its a) NS-children and b) german kids. Also, first the NS-children, then the german kids. It was a solemn occasion on the fiftieth anniversary of WWII. The President of the assembly red the text standing, dressed in national costume. All arise. The text was on beforehand discussed in all the party groups. 2) Eight years later, the same national assembly appointed the writer Eystein Eggen state scholar for his work for the countrys NS-children, as immediately confirmed by the Norwegian State Departement for Culture. What citations could possibly be more official. They are published on the websites of the norwegian State and Storting. Very easy to find on the web. I suppose mr. Klüwer has found them there. The late american ambassador to Berlin in WWI declared in his memoires "Face to Face with Kaiserdom" that Norway was "one of the foremost countries in the world". It presumably still have some prestige left, especially in humanitarian matters.Eric Haig 10:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you're point. I don't disagree with any of this. My earlier point about citing referred to uncited claims about CIA and medical experiments on war children, among other things. -- Steve Hart 19:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Facts
"There are nine billion bicycles in Bejing, that's a fact", Katie Melua sang during the last Nobel Peace Price Ceremony. It is also a fact that the chairman of the Nobel Peace Commity personnally recommended war child and writer Eystein Eggen to State Scholar, a fact endorsed by both Parliament and Gouvernment. It is also a fact that you personally deleted from your otherwise splendid article on War children. Why? I do think you are the right person for this global and tremendous topic. Therefore. 1) A war child, anywhere in the world, should preferably be war born. An arrogant Hitler-Youth born 1930 is not the same case as an orphan in the ruins of 1946. 2) Looser's children are for worse 3) An encyclopedian article should build upon citations from "classic" war children themselves. They are both source and subject. You have done that with case Klüwer. Wouldn't it also be encyclopedian to refer to the fruits of his struggle?  Put some light at the end of the warchildrens lifelong tunnell? You shoulden't be so updated in  academic correct numbers that you outdate the  humanitarian news. It is, as youself repeatedly writes: high temperature. Indeed it is. It is even raising, a fact that should disturb us all. Why haven't, to my knowledge, anybody in f. ex. the Netherlands written open and autobigraphically under full name? The pain and angusish is the same there. Again, in my opinion: they are too weak on the generation conflict, that sharp, invisible line dividing the warveterans from the innocent victims. Best regards Eric Haig 09:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, neither am I opposed to endorsements of war children. If anything, I believe that the nazi war children deserves more, not less, attention. I can't remember removing the reference you pointed at, please provide link to the old revision, or at least name a date.
 * In my opinion young men and women who grew to adolescence before the war are not war children. I understand the internal struggle both groups (they and the war children) have gone through, and I also understand the difference between war children who have stepped forward with their experiences and those who still live in silence.
 * Third, we're talking about two things: a) the war children in historical context and related events, and b) war children's internal struggle and their place in society today. This article is, as it stands right now, mostly about the former. The second issue may even deserve a separate article, in time, if there is enough encyclopedic material. Have books been written about this phenomenon (to resort to an academic term), preferably by outsiders? Has any research been done (see No original research)? Has there been wide media coverage about the psychological part of this issue, as opposed to only surrounding events? The answer to these questions needs to be yes for it to be Wikipedia material. Wikipedia is about what is already known, not about the unknown - even if the unknown exists.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and only that. It's not a venue for public opinion, political discourse or raising awareness, no matter how justified the cause may be (see What Wikipedia is not). Such material will simply quickly be deleted by senior editors. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. There are plenty of places for raising awareness on the Internet and elsewhere in the world, Wikipedia is not one of them. -- Steve Hart 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And a last fact: Having partially deleted frank and oldprussiaminded Klüwer for "propaganda", your good article War children is, alas, sir, for the time being, linked to a homepage produced by a milieu which around 1998, I think it was, was thorougly scrutinized in Searchlight, a peridocal which may still have some renown in these pinesome matters.Eric Haig 12:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not my article :). What link are you referring to? -- Steve Hart 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC) f
 * Mr. Hart! You are clear and elegant as usual!The link isto the association of norewegian NS-children. They maintain that they were founded in 1996, and that's the year after the Stortings public excuse to the NS-children. The invitations to the founding were send out with  oldtimer post from the old oldtimer office. There was a story about an eighty year old lady who on behalf of her kids were invited to the founding. The old lady exclaimed: "Should I give this to my fifty year old son?!?" Klüwers association was founded in 1991, four years before Storthing. I do hope that such an elegant world wide article reenters the link to this true pioneers lucid rendering of the fight against the veterans trying to mobilize their own offspring in their struggle against parliamentary oblivision. See Searchlight on Quislings heirs it was spring 98 and  the veterans finally succumbed and laid  down arms and their organisation INO. Kind regards Eric Haig 12:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And after reading more of your lucid comments above: you have a fine emphaty for family tensions and generation split. Regarding books ( and articles ), see Klüwers bibliography, there are hundreds of them!  Referred to on Klüwers URL, cited above. Sorry if it wasn'nt you who removed the link to this www central page, removed it nonetheless was. Sincerly Eric Haig 13:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed the link to Children of Members of the National Unification (NS) in Norway - (the association of Norwegian NS-children) - because there's only a single page with English text. As for the other one, I chose to link directly to the English version rather than the default homepage. In any event, it's not a big deal for me and if someone wants to reinstate them I won't mind. Thanks for the link btw -- Steve Hart 01:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No original research
But the present article is almost launching of the brand new research institute in Bergen, Norway, the latest launching of several projects in the last thirty years from a research milieu somewhat tainted by revisionism and therefore totally thumbed down in the norwegian parliament in 1995. So much for promoting. The new reserach is financed by the norwegian gouvernment. It is therefore quite appropriate that this new research does not infringe upon the true heroic accomplishments of mr. Klüwer, as officially recognized by the beforesaid gouvernment. Many of the old nazis and their supporters just wants this. This topic has strong humanitarian sides. To recognize the war childrens own strife is truly one of them. Best regards Eric Haig 08:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullying in reference to 20,000 NOK compensation
Well, User:Steve_Hart I’ve read St.meld. nr. 44. Have you????

The 20 000 NOK basic compensation is described as being for what is termed mobbing (i.e. bullying), not overgrep. The term you want to use is a general term applicable to all compensation!

På grunn av de særlige omstendigheter som gjør seg gjeldende omkring mobbing, foreslås å lempe på dokumentasjonskrav for billighetserstatning opp til 20 000 kroner. Samtidig åpnes det for høyere billighetserstatning der det kan fremlegges dokumentasjon for hvilke skader mobbing har påført søker.

Dersom det legges til grunn at det i flesteparten av søknadene som innvilges vil bli utbetalt billighetserstatning med 20 000 kroner for mobbing, samtidig som det tas høyde for at det i enkeltsaker vil bli utbetalt høyere erstatning også for andre overgrep enn mobbing, anslår regjeringen at maksimal utbetaling etter en utvidet ordning ikke vil overstige 240 millioner kroner fordelt over 3 år. Regjeringen antar imidlertid at langt fra alle gjenlevende krigsbarn er påført en slik særlig lidelse, tap eller urimelighet som kan gi grunnlag for billighetserstatning etter en utvidet ordning, og anslår derfor at de samlede erstatningsutbetalinger vil bli på et langt lavere nivå. Regjeringen foreslår at det i en utvidet ordning skal være en øvre grense for størrelsen på billighetserstatning på 200 000 kroner, tilsvarende som for dagens ordning. Forslaget fra Norges krigsbarnforbund og Krigsbarnforbundet Lebensborn inneholder betydelig høyere beløp.

I also suggest you read this article where it is specifically pointed out that the term used is mobbing And this english language document that lavishly uses the term "bullying"! --Stor stark7 Talk 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Compensation is available for "mistreatment", a judicial term. Acts like abuse, bullying, lack of education, wrongful institutionalization, etc, is applicable. Compensation in the 20.000 bracket is not excluded to bullying, on the contrary: "Flesteparten av de krigsbarn som har lidd overlast har vært utsatt for mobbing. Pga flere sammenfallende forhold kom krigsbarn i en særlig vanskelig situasjon. Denne særegne situasjonen gjør at regjeringen foreslår at mobbing skal omfattes av en utvidet billighetserstatningsordning. (my emph) . I haven't read your DN-source (time issues) as in this case no secondary source is needed when the primary source is available. You inclusion of the word "euphemistically" does not conform with WP:WEASEL. -- Steve Hart 17:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is you who are incorrect on several counts.


 * *1
 * As regards primary sources “ In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material.” I.e. we should rely on a reliable secondary source which has analysed the primary source, we should not analyse the primary source our-selves lest we risk violating WP:NOR. I guess we can toy around with original sources on the talk page though, but what ends up in the article should not be such.


 * *2
 * My use of the word euphemistically was an attempt to condense information such as this from a secondary source:


 * I veckan kom regeringens beslut: Var och en får 20.000 kronor som plåster på såren för "mobbning". Den som kan dokumentera misshandel kan få upp till 200.000.
 * I veckan kom regeringens beslut: Var och en får 20.000 kronor som plåster på såren för "mobbning". Den som kan dokumentera misshandel kan få upp till 200.000.


 * Randi Hagen Sydevold blev rasande.


 * - Det är helt förfärligt! Staten gick ut officiellt och förklarade de här barnen för villebråd efter ockupationen. Tusentals utsattes för mycket grova, straffbara handlingar. Nu talar politikerna om "mobbning". Men det här har inga likheter med mobbning!


 * - Sen kräver regeringen dokumentation för att offren ska få skadestånd, trots att de vet att det inte finns någon. Hela samhället känner till vad som hände, men det är så skamligt att politikerna inte vill stå för det.


 * Sloppy of you to take the time to accuse someone of violating WP:WEASEL policy without (ostencibly) first taking the time to eye the material presented as background.


 * *3
 * You are presenting a wrongful interpretation of the quote you present. I presume you meant to write "exclusive" instead of the "excluded" now in the text, and proceed on that assumption. All that the text you quoted says is ...that bullying now is included in the extended compensation rule-work. Your conclusions are disparate from the provided quote.


 * Let me quote to you instead.


 * What factors can justify an application for ex gratia compensation


 * Individuals who have incurred particular suffering, loss and unreasonable treatment in consequence of being ‘war children’ may apply for ex gratia compensation under the extended scheme. Typical factors affecting ‘war children’, and which can form the grounds for an application for ex gratia compensation, are:


 * -being sent back and forth between Norway and Germany
 * -wrongful adoption
 * -bullying


 * This list is not exhaustive. The decisive factor will be whether the factors alleged in the application are, after a concrete discretionary assessment, adjudged to represent such suffering, loss and unreasonable treatment that it seems reasonable that ex gratia compensation is awarded.


 * How much can be applied for
 * Ex gratia compensation can be granted in the sum of up to NOK 200,000. The usual level of compensation is currently running at between NOK 60,000 and 120,000.
 * Individuals who have been bullied are often unable to document what they have suffered. For ‘war children’ a special scheme has been instituted, whereby on the basis of a credible declaration from the person concerned, ex gratia compensation of up to NOK 20,000 can be paid. If there exists documentation of serious damage in consequence of bullying, the ex gratia compensation can be much greater.
 * Endquote.


 * So here we have a separation, (1) the victims of "bullying" who if they can present their case well regardless of documents backing them up can get 20,000 NOK, and (2) those who have suffered serious damage and are capable of presenting documents in evidence of this, in which case they can get up to 200,000 NOK. I wonder what kind of documents someone molested at age 4 is supposed to present. A sworn affidavit by the offender?
 * --Stor stark7 Talk 19:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * -- [notification: last reply formated for readability] --


 * I'll be brief:
 * As for primary versus secondary sources in cases like this one, please se: WP:RS, i.e use primary source, not secondary (at the bottom). So you're mistaken on count 1 and 2.
 * As for compensation, the main term is mistreatment, with a number of criterias qualifying as mistreatment. Bullying is just one of them. Usually bullying isn't covered at all, however, in this particular case bullying was included. But it's not the only criteria in the 20.000 bracket, neither is it the only criteria in the 200.000 bracket. In other words, the sentence: "The basic compensation rate is set to 20,000 NOK (2,500€ / $3,000) for what Norwegian government euphemistically terms "mobbing" (bullying)" is only partially correct.
 * So, we either list the main term only or we list all the criterias. I don't think the latter is notable on the English WP -- Steve Hart 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't be brief, I'll try to spell out my arguments quite, quite, clearly...


 * I do not se why your conclusions should take precedence over that of the newspaper.
 * Are you a “local expert” or “reputable jurist”?


 * The use of the word “bullying” to denote what happened to the war children has obviously offended the representative of the plaintiffs in the case, who feel that it is a far to mild a term. They have also interpreted the legal texts as saying that the 20,000 NOK flat rate basic compensation, which pretty much is applicable for all war children, is for what the government has chosen to term "bullying".  This certainly is notable. The government also states that to get a sum in addition of the 20,000 the plaintiff must present evidence of  serious abuse.


 * The document does not ever mention the word "mistreatment", so why do you keep bringing up your definition of it? Remember WP:RS“First of all, remember there are several legal traditions and that laws are only valid in their own jurisdiction. The opinion of local experts is therefore preferred, in general, to that of outside commentators, due to variances across areas of jurisdiction.”


 * The Norwegian lawyers definition of terms may differ from what you deem it should be. But that is really a moot point as the English text I quote from really makes the use of the term "bullying" quite clear.


 * Individuals who have incurred particular suffering, loss and unreasonable treatment in consequence of being ‘war children’ may apply for ex gratia compensation under the extended scheme. Typical factors affecting ‘war children’, and which can form the grounds for an application for ex gratia compensation, are:


 * -being sent back and forth between Norway and Germany
 * -wrongful adoption
 * -bullying


 * So, if one or more things such as those listed above happened to you as a "war child", then you may apply for compensation, possibly even getting the 200,000 maximum depending on what occurred and your evidence of it. Remember that to get anything above the 20,000 you must produce documents in evidence of your suffering. As I understand it you have to for instance go to a governmental psychologist who might certify in writing that you’ve been mentally damaged.


 * Individuals who have been bullied are often unable to document what they have suffered. For ‘war children’ a special scheme has been instituted, whereby on the basis of a credible declaration from the person concerned, ex gratia compensation of up to NOK 20,000 can be paid


 * And in the text above they only speak of bullying, I.e if you’ve only been “bullied” then you are not expected to be able to produce credible papers in evidence of this. But, victims of “bullying will nevertheless be compensated, with the compensation set at 20,000 NOK. If you can produce papers in evidence of your suffering, then according to the government worse things than “bullying” must have happened to you, which makes you eligible to receive compensation in the 20,000<range<200,001. This does not exclude that you may have been bullied in addition to the other "bad things".


 * Your arguments for not associating “bullying” with the 20,000 compensation in the article make no sense to me. Sure, if you are a 'war child' you probably experienced worse things than "bullying", but if you are unable to produce documents in evidence of this then the maximum compensation of 20,000 NOK that you can get is formally for "bullying" and nothing else. --Stor stark7 Talk 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(de-indented) Out of fear of repeating myself:
 * It's not "my conclusions"; on the contrary I've referred to law text. In these cases a primary source is preferred over newspaper reports.
 * Your point about "several legal traditions" and "jurisdiction" is irrelevant since Norway has only one jurisdiction (unlike the U.S. or other nations).
 * Compensation within the 20.000 bracked may be granted both for undocumented cases of bullying and for other (documented) cases of minor mistreatment. The only qualifying difference is that proof is not needed for "minor bullying" due to the difficulties of providing evidence 40-50 years after it happened. It's your job to bring cites (law text) proving differently (i.e. that compensations in the 20.000 bracket is for bullying exclusively). If I'm wrong I'll be happy to include it.

-- Steve Hart 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Norwegian term used is "overgrep"; note the headlines for chapters: 8.3, 8.3.2, 8.3.3, in . The closest term in English is "mistreatment", as "abuse" is mostly used in the context of physical mistreatment.


 * I have had a second look into this matter. It appears it's unusual to be rewarded the same small compensation in documented cases as in the undocumented cases of bullying. So, even though, AFAIK, small compensations may be paid out, it happens so rarely that your view of the matter is more correct than mine. In other words, I'm fine with the text as i stands now :). -- Steve Hart 00:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Canadian soldiers
I strongly doubt that very many Canadian soldier got pregnant in England, I suspect that it was more likely that Canadian soldiers impregnated British women. I've slightly revised the sentence to reflect that. David Cheater 00:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazing :)) At least I got a big laugh out of it. -- Steve Hart 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The children were despised in German society
Probably the most anti-German statement in this Wikipedia.Xx236 13:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)