Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German military occupation of Norway during World War II

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 01:27, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

German military occupation of Norway during World War II
This article was a result of a move from Nazi occupation of Norway, as well as apologist edits for the Nazi regime, e.g., that the invasion was a result of Allied aggression against vital supply of iron ore from Sweden to Germany.

The original article is correctly titled, for several reasons:
 * Although there haven't been other German occupations of Norway, labeling it "Nazi" makes it precise and less ambiguous
 * It was not only a military occupation - in addition to the role of Quisling's illegal regime, Terboven ran the civilian organizations that occupied Norway but had no control over the military forces there
 * In truth, not just Germans were involved in the occupation - there were Norwegian collaborators and Austrian troops
 * There is no reason to embellish the fact that this was a Nazi act of aggression. I'm certainly not trying to diminish the fact that the Nazi leadership was German, but the responsibility should be laid at the feet of the Nazis first and foremost.  --Leifern 17:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * If there existed a "Nazi occupation", there must also exist a "Zionist occupation" or "Likud occupation" of Palestine, and a "neo-con occupation" or "republican occupation" of Iraq.


 * Concerning the Austrians, Norway was occupied by Germany as a state. Austria did not occupy Norway as Austria did not exist as souvereign state at the time in question, Austria was part of Germany. Also, military occupation is the correct term here. Consider checking what a military occupation actually is.


 * Please stop trying to drag the Jews and the issue of Palestine into this. RK


 * We have to use one standard for all countries. Thus contemporary American and Israeli occupations are relevant to the debate. Courage 20:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We might as well include the Palestinian occupation of British territory, the British occupation of Turkish territory, the Turkish occupation of Crusader territory, the Crusader occupation of Muslim territory, the Islamic occupation of Roman territory, the Roman and Greek occupation of Israeli/ Jewish territory, and the Jewish occupation of Canaanite territory.... and on and on and on, back to when Homo erectus occupied the territory of whatever animal was king or queen of the Levant before his or her coming. It's ALL relevant, but it makes quite a bit of work to do. Besides, it's easier to refer to border changes and conquests than occupations, and, even then, "occupation" should refer to takeovers that are temporary. Much of Israel's "occupied" territory is under Israel's jurisdiction in a manner intended to be permanent or long-lasting; therefore, "colonizing" or "annexation" is really a better term. (Or Manifest Destiny. Or expansionism.)   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Leifern 17:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --RK 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Ulflarsen 19:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the one reason that this is a carbon copy of the article Nazi occupation of Norway (done by User:83.109.191.208). There obviously seems to have been some POV fight back at the original article, and this need to be settled, but that is a seperate matter. Forking of a copy is not the way to do it. -- Egil 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - and delete the article with Nazi in the title - during World War II the German Government was Nazi; but it was Germany as a soverign state occupying Norway not a Government party. We would not refer to the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq but rather accept that the US, UK, Australia and other countries are acting as sovereign powers.  --AYArktos 21:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I would argue that the Nazi regime in Germany was illegal in and of itself; please see point 3 above. Also, you surely can't mean that we should limit the meaning to a "military" occupation?  --Leifern 22:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The German government "illegal"? LOL. If this is not POV, I don't know what else would be. Note that Leifern is a notorious pro-Israel POV pusher known for his right-extreme viewpoints from Norwegian websites.
 * The above is perhaps the purest usage of the ad hominem fallacy I have ever seen. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the anonymous "editor" who has instigated this sees a clear connection between the two topics, in the sense that it's "Jewish propaganda" (as he put it on my Talk page) that is the core problem. --Leifern 10:46, May 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Leifern, you are correct. We unfortunately have a number of people who attack those who are Jewish (or anyone who doesn't hate the State of Israel), and usse any debate as a pretext to use  anti-Jewish polemics.  I would think that this Judeao-obsessive anger is reason enough to disregard their views on any subject, including this one. RK


 * Antisemitism is a big problem - it's POV, and it is, essentially, a bunch of lies with a few embarrassing truths thrown into the mix (the truths being that Jews want their old homeland back, they have it, and they don't intend to go anywhere).    &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * keep as above --Doc Glasgow 22:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Who bears moral responsibility is not the issue - the fact is that Norway was occupied by the German military not simply the Nazi party --Doc Glasgow 23:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with AYArktos. Following the logic of those who prefer term: "Nazi Occupation", for consistency purpose, ALL of the occupations during the last 60-70 yrs. by Germany, Soviet Union, China, Japan, US, Israel, etc. should be renamed using the name of the political party in power at the time. --Ttyre 15:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all POV forks, and work out the proper name for the original article on the article's Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Leifern's explanation above. As he points out, the occupation was not just military, it was political.  The analogy between Nazi/Germany and Bush/USA is faulty.  However much a shmuck our president is, he was legitimately elected and complies iwth our constition about as well as most presidents.  While the Nazi party was a political party, it was also a paramilitary organization; Hitler was legally named Chancelor, but no one seriously believes his government has any kind of legitimacy (one of the issues at the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal).  World War II was unique in many ways, because of the ideological and political dimensions of the conflict &mdash; it was not just another war, and Germany was definitly not just your typical occupying power.  And, as Leifern points out, the occupation involved not just the self-interested kind of collaboration that always occurs, but politically motivated collaboration.  "German military occupation" is history without politics.  This is bad history, especially in this case. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and use the 'Nazi' wording. It's a more obvious and more well known title.--Fangz 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the above title, and allow the original article Nazi occupation of Norway to remain. For goodness sake has no-one heard of Vidkun Quisling, the original "Quisling" himself!? The Nazi party is fully responsible for ALL the activities of the Third Reich, including whatever the Wehrmacht did or did not do in Norway or elsewhere. Hitler and the Nazis were the supreme leaders of Germany from 1933-1945 and they bear full and complete responsibilty and guilt for all foreign and military actions, the army was following orders. IZAK 23:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * sheesh - Can't say I'm that bothered over this - Nazi may be a more obvious title - and I certainly don't want to minimise Nazi guilt - but listen to yourself - is just 'following orders' now an escape from moral culpability?? --Doc Glasgow 23:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Doc, note very carefully, I did not write "just 'following orders' ", what I did write was that the German army "was following orders" of the Nazi party, not as a judgment of its "morality", but as an aspect of how the occupation worked and how the system worked as a totality as a whole in Nazi Germany and beyond its borders: It was a clear "Pyramid" with Hitler at the top, the Nazi party below him, and below them came the army and then the rest of the German people and below them their foreign (Axis) allies and collaborators, all of whom share "moral" guilt, but this is not about guilt as such, this is about how the political system of Norway functioned at that time. IZAK 00:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * OK noted but you did say that the leadership bore 'complete responsibility' Doc Glasgow 00:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No redirect. El_C 23:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be the result of a copy-and-paste move from Nazi occupation of Norway, so simply deleting the other copy is not an appropriate way to rename the article: it won't preserve the edit history. --Carnildo 23:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up the move properly. Sam Spade 00:09, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. No redirect. And yes, keep the Nazi occupation of Norway title. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fork. Radiant_* 14:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the article and the redirect. As long as one is a redirect to the other I just can't get all that worked up about the title. Either one works for me. &mdash; 130.76.32.16 15:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Like the above I can't get too worked up over Nazi or German - but I'm curious as to why this has been speedied - without a clear consensus? --Doc Glasgow 18:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * According to Special:Log, it was deleted on the grounds that it's a copy-and-paste move of Nazi occupation of Norway. --Carnildo
 * I created the duplication, but I realized that this was not the proper way to move a page, so I requested that the duplication was deleted. Courage 20:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - the government of Germany was recruited from the Nazi party, but it was not the Nazi party who occupied Norway, but the German army, German government and German police forces. Also, to me the promotion of the term Nazi when speaking about the state of Germany seems like one of the ways to promote the view that it was a bunch of Nazis that were responsible for WWII, and not the state and the government of Germany. As such, I find it quite POV, when used outside of the purely political context. Halibutt 19:22, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or refer to Requested moves. After merge, create a redirect. Keep preferable to deletion if any information was to be lost. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepDeirYassin 19:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep--Witkacy 20:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and create redirect Szopen 06:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Either delete this and keep Nazi occupation of Norway; or vice versa. In this case, the longish current title should be shortened to German occupation of Norway (unless used metaphorically, an occupation is always military, and the only German occupation of Norway was in WWII, so there is no need to disambiguate in the title). Further, I suggest not to hype the supposed difference between the attributes "Nazi" and "German". The above objection that speaking of a "Nazi occupation" would necessitate to speak of "'Zionist occupation' or 'Likud occupation' of Palestine" or "a 'neo-con occupation' or 'republican occupation' of Iraq" by analogy does not hold water, neither does Halibutt's comment that it "was not the Nazi party who occupied Norway" - Halibutt, is it possible that you are reading too much stuff of this kind? ;-) The Nazis were not just another party that happened to be in power at the time, but a totalitarian regime which established a firm grip on German society. By the time WW II broke out, the German government, state apparatus and society at large had become largely synonymous with the Nazis. It is a commonly accepted practice to prefix the name of the country with the name of the totalitarian regime which controlled it (that is why we have a "Fascist Italy", a "Nazi Germany", a "Soviet Russia", but no "Republican United States" or "Likud Israel"), and to use the ideology's name as interchangeable with the name of the country proper. Thus, "Nazi occupation" and "German occupation" are equally correct. --Thorsten1 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, I neither like nor read the Wyprost weekly, they are far too rightist for me. My oppinion is equally valid as yours, BTW. As to the Nazi being synonymous to Germany - not really. There is a strong belief in many of contemporary historians that the German army was not that Nazified - and it was the German army (not Nazi military units!) that carried over both the invasion and the occupation. Also, the civilian German authorities were not always Nazi. The Nazis were indeed a totalitarian regime, but it is the governments and armies that wage wars, not the regimes as such. It is John Doe and Jane Smith who might be Nazis, but the whole army and whole state? Of course, there is a common practice to add a prefix to the country's name in order to make it clear to which historical period we are referring. However, here the case is not about adding the prefix, but about replacing the whole name of the state with a name of one of the political factions. Also, as someone pointed out, there was only one German occupation of Norway, and there was only one German state at that time, so there's really no point in disambiguation. Halibutt
 * "Not really, I neither like nor read the Wyprost weekly, they are far too rightist for me."  I am pleased to hear that, no offence intended. :-) However, it seems that their opinion-forming power in Poland, even over those who try not not swallow their polarising line, is easily underestimated. Quite irrespective of that, you are, of course, entitled to your opinion that there are people who "promote the view that it was a bunch of Nazis that were responsible for WWII, and not the state and the government of Germany" - even if it is strikingly close to certain conspiracy theories emanating from Wprost's editorial office. However, those unnamed "people" seem to receive more attention in Poland than elsewhere, including Germany - the situation is similar as with the ominous Polish death camps, a term actually rarely heard outside Poland. I have a vague idea that this might be why you are reading more into the issue of "German" vs. "Nazi occupation" than there actually is (or should be, in my opinion). Note that I was not arguing for or against either attribute; my point is simply that the difference is not really as defining as you (and the author of this article) seem to think.
 * As for your comment on the German army - yes, ironically the German foreign service and military, milieus shaped by traditional, aristocratic conservatives, were a stronghold of anti-Nazi opposition. However, "stronghold" is a highly relative term here. In the end, the uppish generals executed the orders of the proletarian Nazi upstarts; and it should not be overlooked that every German soldier was obliged to swear an oath to Hitler as a person, not just as an incumbent of a constitutional office. The few officers who actively or passively opposed the regime, and attempted to assassinate Hitler as late as 1944, did so on their private initiative, not as representatives of the military or any constitutional body. The government consisted of Nazis, the army would not have started the war without receiving an order, and would certainly not have occupied Norway. In this light, your objection that it is "governments and armies that wage wars, not the regimes as such" appears like a distinction without much difference. "It is John Doe and Jane Smith who might be Nazis, but the whole army and whole state?" No, the army and the state were obviously not Nazis, as party membership was restricted to physical persons such as John Doe or Jane Smith. However, while not every single German John or Jane D. was a party member, the army and the state as a whole were executioners of Nazi policies. As for replacing "the name of the state with a name of one of the political factions" - I am sorry, but this statement does not reveal much historical competence. In Nazi Germany, the Nazi party was not simply "one of the political factions"; Germany was a one-party state, membership in many of the party's affiliated organisations (most notably the Hitler Youth) was compulsory. The party was not just one political faction - it was the only and defining political force from 1933 to 1945, and it was not governing within an existing state structure, but reshaped the state to fit its own ideology. It controlled each and every aspect of social life, leaving a degree of autonomy only to the two major churches. A key difference between Italian Fascism and German National Socialism was that the former saw itself as a kind of deus ex machina to preserve and strengthen the state, whereas the latter considered the "party" as the supreme incarnation of the general will. Although the Nazis never bothered to formally revoke the Weimar Constitution, it became waste-paper within weeks of Hitler's appointment as chancellor, and you will certainly not find any authority to refute that the Nazi state was an entity essentially different from the Weimar Republic. In the light of all this, there is really no compelling reason to replace the existing title "Nazi occupation" with "German occupation"; although, on the other hand, there is no compelling reason to keep the original title, either. --Thorsten1 15:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It is simply incorrect that "the government consisted of Nazis". The government consisted of people from different political camps. The minister of finance was not a National Socialist, but a conservative which did not belong to any party. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the discussion. It is absurd to claim it was "Nazism" and not Germany which occupied Norway, and no serious Norwegian historian would support this ridiculous claim. Courage 19:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * So you found a minister who was not a party member ? Eureka, the history of Nazi Germany needs to be rewritten! ;-) Not all ministers during the 12 years of Nazi rule were party members; in the very beginning, there were only three Nazis in the entire cabinet, and Hitler was hoped to be outmanoeuvered within months. As any history book will tell you, this did not help much. While the Nazis still had to be considerate of the conservative political establishment in the beginning, foreign minister von Neurath's replacement with Ribbentrop in 1938 marks the definite end of that period. The occupation of Norway occured afterwards. Apart from that, nobody claimed that "it was "Nazism" and not Germany which occupied Norway". If you choose to read this "ridiculous claim" into the title "Nazi occupation", that is entirely your business. --Thorsten1 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you insist on replacing Germany with Nazism, you are certainly making such a claim. Courage 20:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you would care to actually read my statements you might discover I never did that. Instead, I doubted the relevance of the distinction. --Thorsten1 20:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with the initial points that brought this issue to deletion. Etz Haim 10:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Neria 10:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Almog 10:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 13:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * keep - but delete the word military from the headline --Soup man 11:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * keep i think this title is more appropriate. add a redirect from "Nazy occupation" as well. Gilgamesh he 12:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * delete i changed my mind. Gilgamesh he 14:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. While the German government was ruling power, most articles and references to that time in German history refer to Nazi rule and not German rule. Accurately or not, the Nazi regime is usually viewed as an aberation in German history, and thus should be distinct. In addition, the existance of non-German Nazi's is not included in the title "German Military Occupation." Mikeage 13:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There should definitely only be one article, so the issue of the name needs to be resolved on the page. As far as the naming, I think it should either be German or more correctly Axis...but I am not knowledgeable enough about the naming conventions, and I do agree that whatever is the norm among historians should be continued. PhatJew
 * Delete either this one or the other one. I suspect a good title would be "German and Nazi Occupation of Norway during WWII" for the remaining page.   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Question
I would like to suggest "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany". Is that an option, or can I only say nay or yeah? gidonb 07:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I would support this solution as one possible compromise (note my comment above, though). --Thorsten1 09:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that "Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany" is a title that covers the actual situation quite well, and so gives meaning and knowledge to the one reading about it. So I support that. Ulflarsen 10:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I support this. Tuohirulla 12:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with that title. --Leifern 13:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good title. Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Great that my suggestion is being appreciated. So what can I do next? Just change the title? Suggest it here or elsewhere? I am terribly unexperienced at this. If somebody would like to take over from here that would be fine. Otherwise, I would like some directions what to do next. gidonb 13:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If you get enough support for the new name, it can just be moved. Why don't you give it a couple of days so that other people have a chance to comment? Jayjg (talk)  13:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok lets go for it. I would like to suggest the following title for this article:

Rationale
I would appreciate if the participants to this discussion will consider my proposal. gidonb 13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Nazi Germany is a well-known and unbiased name for the period that Germany was ruled by the dictator Adolf Hitler, also known as the Third Reich.
 * 2) Including Nazi Germany gives a similar temporal specificity as "during the Second World War" (WWII).
 * 3) It includes both the word Nazi and Germany, which each side demanded.
 * 4) The title combines the unbiasedness and specificity of both proposals.

The country was not called "Nazi Germany". This awkward term is only used by some Germans who claim "Germany" had nothing to do with WWII. It is an ahistorical apologist title, which is completely inappropriate in formal uses. It suggests that the German government of the time was not actually the "real" German government. We shouldn't use this title for the same reason that we shouldn't use "Republican US", "Bush USA", or "Likud Israel". Courage 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right that Nazi Germany never was the name of Germany. However, the names 'Third Reich' and 'Nazi Germany' are widely accepted names for the temporal phase of Germany (then officially Deutsche Reich) during which Hitler was its ruler. Nazi Germany is wider accepted in English, yet neither was an official name. In German the term Third Reich is more commonly used. See also the article Nazi Germany and its talk page. A hardly used term is the 'Thousand Year Reich'. To overcome the trap that someone may think that Nazi Germany was not Germany, I believe it is good practice to use the names interchangeably in the text of articles on this era (that is Germany for Nazi Germany; not the other way around). In the title, however, the specificity of Nazi Germany can add to a better identification of the article's content. I do not see what Israel or the US have to do with this issue. gidonb  21:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Courage, I do not see a real point in discussing with you when you do obviously not even care to read your opponents' statements, and either ignore them or claim that they mean the opposite of what they actually say (see our exchange above).
 * Just for the record: The claims you are making above are totally out of line with what everyone else seems to think. Not only is Nazi Germany, as Gidonb has pointed out, a perfectly common name throughout the English-speaking world, the conventions of which we should follow here. To my knowledge, no one has ever implied that the Nazis were not "real" Germans or that the term "Nazi Germany" was apologetic. This remains your own, highly idiosyncratic interpretation.
 * As for "Likud Israel": Israel is a liberal democracy in which the Likud was elected to govern, based on parliamentary support and within the constraints of a coalition, for a constitutionally determined duration. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was a totalitarian state shaped by Nazi ideology. Not only were there no functioning democratic procedures to change the governement again or to articulate dissent; dissent itself was forbidden on pain of death. Similar can be said of the U.S. I repeatedly explained the difference; your consistent refusal to consider this gives me an idea that you are not really seeking to discuss the German occupation of Norway at all: Is it possible that you are really just looking for a venue to criticise Bush and Sharon? If so, rest assured that the title of this article is not the most effective choice. --Thorsten1 08:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I AGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

 * Agree for reasons given above gidonb  13:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Leifern 14:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Ulflarsen 14:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Gzuckier 14:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Mikeage 14:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, disregarding the content of the article, but if the content is OK (which I'm not sure) than this can be a proper title). MathKnight 15:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree - including MathKnight's remark. Almog 15:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, if this compromise helps to appease editors who have somehow been led to believe that the attribute "Nazi" minimises German responsibility (see above). Nazi German occupation of Norway might be less awkward, though. --Thorsten1 15:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the insistence on German military occupation was intended to have the opposite effect: to depict a version of history that makes the occupation seem like a conventional, neighborly occupation that was justified by British aggression. The person who proposed this title accused me of "Jewish propaganda," though it isn't clear to me how religion enters into this discussion.  --Leifern 18:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am always puzzled how people will relate anything to American, Jewish or Israeli people, organizations or features. Why not just discuss topics "as is"? This may be one of the very few points shared by the far left and right. gidonb  18:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree seems like a reasonable solution to me. PhatJew
 * Agree. Jayjg (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Soup man 15:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree as well, although "Nazi and German Occupation..." would also work.   &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 18:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Cybbe 22:15, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aye. Tomer TALK  01:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree It is absolutely ridiculuous to try and state that it was purely a military occupation and had no political motives. Certainly Nazi Germany was about nationalism, but it also was over and above about politics, which includes racism. Evolver of Borg 18:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Remembering disputed outcome of voting on Gdansk Vote shouldn't the clear general voting rules (e.g. eligibility, deadline) be established? --Ttyre 17:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Duffman 17:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I DISAGREE that the title should be: Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.