Quote:
Originally Posted by essence
|
True to form Wikipedia's treatment is not by scholars of history but by polemicists who are contributing to it.
What it calls a "puppet government" was the actual government of Norway at the time, just as the Vichey government under Marshall Petan was the actual government of France.
You might not want to believe it but that was the ruling government, and it was composed of Norwegians assisted by Gemans. Norwegians composed the government. You might chose to believe the nonesense in "Wikipedia" calling the exile government the "legitimate" government, but they didn't rule anything at that time.
These are loaded and biased phrases "puppet" "legitimate," and so forth, and are not used by real scholars.
The simple fact is that when the Germans came in and threw out the socialists and the British [who were using Norwegian politicians for their own designs] the Germans installed the Right wing in Norway, and the socialists, communists, and their stupid King fled. For goodness sake are you saying the Norwegians should be Monarchists? The King didn't rule anything and wasn't any part of any ruling government.
The Right ruled in Norway until the end of the war, and it's too bad for the communists and socialists, but to say that the Right under Quisling was "illegitimate" is simply a moralistic statement and not one of fact.
You know it's always easy to mischaracterize things when you take uncritically the propaganda of the winning side.
In Norway as in all countries in Europe there was conflict, actually civil war, about these issues. The socialists, communists and left formed resistance to occupation while those on the right welcomed occupation and collaborated.
Now that one side has won they want to tag their opponants as "traitors" and so forth, but they weren't traitors at all.
They were fighting for a different vision and lost.
I count myself as on the losing side.