Talk:Operation Weserübung

More info on Norwegian Campaign in the works...

To put it mildly, any Norwegian with a slight semblance of historical interest would probably take this article in its previous form as an insult -- without there being as much as a notice of the total lack of info on the military events of Weserübung in Norway -- not even the sinking of the heavy cruiser Blücher on April 9 is mentioned; nor is the two month long campaign... (compare with, eg., the Polish September Campaign, as regards breadth of coverage for an even shorter campaign, although the latter is of course of singular interest as it "opened" WWII).

Wikipedia being what it is, this is of course not a complaint addressing the lack of info as such, but the missing disclaimer of same lack -- which in this case must be said to have been misleading to a novice reader. --Wernher 20:30, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So there, now there's a list of events to show people that invading Norway must at least have been a nuisance to the uninvited guests, not to mention to the little mustachioed man in Berlin... --Wernher 04:25, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Norway now a Baltic state...

The 'listbox' of WWII theatres places Weserübung in the Baltic states. Needless to say, this is unconventional geography, at the least, so I have put a comment questioning this in the relevant article. I suggest Scandinavia as the name of the theatre. --Wernher 22:40, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The misunderstanding was quickly fixed – a tribute to Wikipedia. --Wernher 01:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, you can see Scandinavia annoted as "Baltic" in some English-language works, however, this does not seem to be common in more recent works. As usual, the locals can not change such a bad habit. /Tuomas 03:54, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that definitions of the Baltic region contain Scandinavia, which is OK; there have been trade relations within this greater region for a thousand years or so. But the three Baltic states should not be confused with the larger region. --Wernher 09:53, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

There are rare instances when editing a talk page is necessity; this is one of them. I have replaced all links to "List of World War II theaters and campaigns" with a link to the page it moved to: List of theaters and campaigns of World War II, to avoid double-redirects. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Re the mention of Heydrich

Just a short note: Heydrich as a Luftwaffe fighter pilot is mentioned misc places on the 'web, and a couple of years ago I read somewhere (now, if I only could remember which book...) that he was one of those landing at Kjevik (Kr.sand) at Wesertag. He also flew some recon missions from Sola (Stavanger) over the UK, before returning to Berlin in May. Some proper refs will have to be digged out. --Wernher 10:58, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Rationale for misc edits 2 Sep 2004

1. Reinstating the former version of the intro paragraph where the details of Weserzeit are kept out of the main paragraph body makes the prose float better, and (re)fixes/repairs some of the prose which had been somewhat grammatically mutilated.
2. Changing the note markers from this¹ and this² to this^* makes the notes significantly more visible, and reduces editing work as well as helping avoid goofs when adding/removing notes.
3. The fact of the Fornebu landing being the ...first paratrooper attack in history... is conveyed more clearly to the reader if the lk txt of the Fallschirmjäger lk is the general English language word for that type of troops.
   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernher (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

Update: see the thread Descending (Wehrmacht) soldiers... below. --W—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wernher (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 September 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I believe that this should be merged with Allied campaign in Norway to avoid duplication. DJ Clayworth 14:34, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It hopefully will not. The German and the British operations were interconnected, but many things in history and life are so. Merging these articles has the potency to cause more confusion and problems than it may solve. /Tuomas 22:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe they should be merged. The main problem (I think) is the lack of an overview of the Scandanavian Campaign, which would include both. Oberiko 10:35, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Oberiko and Tuomas. An overview is to be expected in the article structurally one tier above this, i.e. in the European Theater-article.
--Ruhrjung 07:12, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

I recently amended the article to beef up the stuff about the sinking in the narrows, but my one little clause packs a lot of expandable information. The aftermath of the sinking was the successful escape of the government, the king, and the treasury, which had great impact, not only on Norway, but on the war as a whole. The Norwegian merchant fleet, for instance, was transferred wholesale to the allied cause and the treasury was used, among other things, to finance a Norwegian warship that participated in the sea campaigns against the Germans, and, I believe, sunk a ship. In addition, the Norwegian resistance sank ships for the rest of the war, with the Norwegian resistance aiding the British to sink several battleships (don't have my reference handy) that were hiding in the fjords. Furthermore, vast numbers of German troops were tied up in Norway, prisoners of British deceptions about plans to invade and the genuine resistance of the Norwegians. When they finally departed, the Germans destroyed much of the north of Norway. Any article about the "Scandanavian campaign" is really going to be an article about the Norwegian campaign. Denmark was overrun in days (although there was some action in Greenland), Sweden . . . well, we know about that, Finland was a vastly complicated story that should also be told separately. I don't know what Iceland did. Norway was counted among the victorious allies of World War 2. The story is less well known than the French story, but much more to Norway's credit. Ortolan88 15:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you Ortolan. Scandinavia (originally my wording for the campaign) is a bad choice. Norway was the only nation really involved and Finland (with the Winter and Continuation War) is not only vastly to complicated to fit here, but has little relevance to the Norwegian Campaign <-- (Proposed overview page). Oberiko 15:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The merge-banner is now removed.
--Ruhrjung 07:04, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Descending (Wehrmacht) soldiers...

Regarding the disagreement over using the term paratrooper vs Fallschirmjäger in the following sentence in the article:

German airborne troops landed at Oslo airport Fornebu, Kristiansand airport Kjevik, and Stavanger airport Sola – the latter constituting the first TERM1 (TERM2) attack in history...

As said attack was the first ever (in history) made by airborne troops descending in parachutes, I argue that the general English language term for such troops should be used as TERM1. TERM2, if present, should be used for specifying the particular type of paratroopers employed on this occasion. From The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, the Unabridged Edition, 1983, reprinted in 1989 as part of Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (ISBN 0-517-68781-X) we have:

paratrooper, n. Mil. a member of an army infantry unit trained to attack or land in combat areas by parachuting from airplanes. [PARA(CHUTE)+TROOPER]

This seems to indicate that paratrooper is, indeed, the general English language term. If anyone wants to comment on this "editing controversy" (?), you're welcome to. --Wernher 20:49, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we perhaps transpose the two terms? -Joseph (Talk) 21:05, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be better, I think, i.e. putting the German word in parentheses following the general English term. The German term is of course also referred/linked to very visibly in the paratrooper article, but the solution you mention would inform readers of the specific German term directly. BTW, the Fallschirmjäger article seems to indicate that the G. term was/is used for WWII G. paratroopers exclusively -- is that the case? Are today's Bundeswehr's paratroops (if any) called otherwise? --Wernher 14:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Transposition performed. I think they do still use the term. I'll have to check and modify that article accordingly. -Joseph (Talk) 19:58, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

In german the the word Fallschirmjäger is used for all paratroopers regardless of era and nationalityNevfennas 22:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article linking

• It's common practice not to have multiple links to the same location within an article. Perhaps the phrase simply needs to be reworded to match your criteria here? Oberiko 23:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  An alternative would of course be to make different articles for the transitations through Sweden and Finland respectively, but I don't think that's such a good idea. The Russian and German policies are linked both by practice, time, and by their then-concordance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. As long as it isn't done frequently, I think Ruhrjung's solution is suitable in this particular case — ...but if you wish to improve the wordings, maybe that can be accomplished; although, I fear that to be a hornets' nest that I don't want to mess with. /Tuomas 23:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temp article

At Operation Weserübung/temp I've relocated some text I originally had for the Norwegian Campaign. I'll integrate it here later. Oberiko 13:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why all the redundancy? Couldn't the Norwegian Campaign be the main history page and Operation Weserübung concern the German plan for the operation? That would seem the most logical. — RJH 02:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's why I put it here. The temp article contains my first draft for the Norwegian Campaign article, but I thought it was to focused on Weserubung so I started over. Instead of simply deleting the old one, I put it in the temp just in case someone might find something useful in there. Oberiko 02:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I meant why all of the redundancy in this article of material that more properly belongs in Norwegian Campaign. In the Invasion of Norway section is a big long list of content that "should" be included here, but is really more appropriate for the Norwegian Campaign page. I added a merge tag to that part of the text, but somebody then deleted it. But I don't see a good argument for keeping that list here. Thanks. — RJH 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Norwegian Campaign

These articles seem to be almost entirely redundant with each other. In reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, it appears we should avoid using the operational codeword (in this case Weserübung); but Norwegian Campaign is a bit misleading (since Denmark was part of Weserübung) and because there is no clear agreed-upon term for this offensive. Also, more articles link to this article rather than Norwegian Campaign. On the other hand, Norwegian Campaign seems to be a longer and better structured article. --Leifern 22:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Denmark was captured soley due the fact that it would allow the Luftwaffe airbases close to Norway. It was never really an objective in and of itself. Oberiko 00:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To Leifern: We should have in mind, though, that Norwegian Campaign describes the entire campaign including the allied efforts, while Weserübung was the German invasion as such. That's the reason I haven't suggested such a merge myself; I think both articles might have a place here. --Wernher 00:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but even so, the two have an enormous amount of redundancy. If you look at Operation Barbarossa, you'll see this includes the Soviet preparations as well as the German plans. I'm not opposed to two articles, but the distinction has to be clear and redundancy minimized. --Leifern 02:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. This was also discussed above and I believe the consensus was to keep both articles, which I also support. What could be done to minimize redundancy? I was thinking of crosslinks between the two articles. One can jump directly to a section by linking thusly: German Plans. Cheers Jbetak 03:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reopen this but, as a newcomer to the article, I was confused to find that "Norwegian Campaign" included Denmark as a participant - when the Danes scarcely opposed their own occupation. For British readers, I suggest "Norwegian Campaign" is just that: the fighting in Norway, which is covered elsewhere, eg Battles of Narvik, so the title is a misnomer. IMO, either rename this article appropriately (and it could serve as the overview article pointing to specific, detailed articles), merge it as proposed or rationalise our whole coverage of WWII in Scandinavia. I'll attempt to put together a campaign template. Folks at 137 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to merge the two articles, but we do need to separate them better. I think that the Norwegian Campaign article should be an article dealing just with what we in Norwegian call simply "Felttoget" - "the Campaign". Template:Campaignbox Nazi occupation of Norway includes all the battles of the Campaign (those created thus far at least...), but also the various occupation events. A pure campaign template would be nice, use the abovementioned template as a starting point. We shouldn't merge the two articles, just clean them up a bit. Get the Danes out of Norwegian Campaign, they belong under Operation Weserübung and move most of the pre-planning suff to Weserübung too, leaving a short summary and a link like: "main article: Operation Weserübung". I totally agree that Norwegian Campaign should deal mostly with the actual campaign, there's more than enough material for that to work. Manxruler 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's not my area, I'll sit back. There's good material, but the organisation does need review and discussion. I've applied a new template, mainly to highlight the overlaps. It does duplicate aspects already in the WWII & Norway box but also includes Swedish, Danish and Finnish topics: there was a fair amount of interlinking after all. Keep it if it's useful. Also have a look at the main Template:World War II: it lists Operation Weserubung as the main article for the campaign (as do other articles: take a look at the "what links here" tab). Maybe a new article to record the invasion of Denmark and thus separate it. Folks at 137 14:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying, we totally need a new "Norwegian Campaign" template, the Occupation of Norway template is an awful mix of events from the campaign and from the occupation. I'll support a new template, and help make it a good one. Manxruler 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As this last merge proposal has led to no debate at all, and this subject has already been extensively debated TWICE before with the conclusion not to merge I say we remove the whole "merge proposal" sign and focus on improving and separating the the two articles better. I'll get working on both articles as soon as I have some spare time. Manxruler 02:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem stems from the lack of a good History of Norway during World War II article, which can be the summary of all things Norway while the "children" articles can focus on the specifics. Oberiko 00:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If I had had the time I would have done something about it. When Christmas comes I might be able to take care of this issue. Merging is certainly not a solution here. Manxruler 05:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Invasion of Norway - Concise timeline

This section has a lot of useful infomation but is currently in the form of a very long list and could use to be cleaned up. --Peter Robinett 15:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible Misleading Statement

This is a minor and insignificant point, but it keeps me up at night. In the section "Timeline", the last point says: "Norway capitulated on 10 June 1940, two months after Wesertag, this made Norway the invaded country which withstood the German war machine for the second longest time. Only the Soviet Union provided the Germans with a more prolonged fight." To me, at least, the parallel is not valid. In the first place, Norway eventually capitulated, and the Soviet Union did not. And again, if the author is instead reffering to the time between the start of the conflict and the conclusion of a peace, then Great Britain technically fought the Germans for a longer period than even the Soviet Union, thus giving them (the Germans) the more "prolonged fight".

Again, I apologise for bringing up such a minor issue, but I feel that it had to be mentioned.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SdKfz (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, even though UK proper was never invaded. Some of her colonies were, though. But the question of surrender is a complicated one. Personally, I would rank Yugoslavia, and possibly Greece, as two non-surrendering countries as well... Asav 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Greece was invaded by Germany 6 April 1941, was overrun and the government had to evacuate by the end of May [1]. Yugoslavia was invaded April 6th 1941 and signed an armistice on April 17th [2]. Then you have to include the fact that the Norwegian government only capitulated the combattant forces in mainland Norway (on 10 June)[3]. The Norwegian state never capitulated, the Government and armed forces able to fight from other places (mainly Britain) continued to do so. If you want to nitpick some more and include British colonies well then you have to include Norwegian colonies and conclude Norway was never totally invaded by Germany. The bottom line is as stated that Germany had to fight for two months to gain controll of Norway. The Soviet Union held on longer and were to my knowledge the only ones to hold on longer (I haven't checked all invaded countries). I think the sentance should be reworded to make it better, but the main point is still corect.Inge 13:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm making is that only the Soviet Union managed to withstand a Nazi German invasion for more than two months. They, of course, turned the tables on the Nazis and counter-invaded them, but that's besides the point. I'm not talking colonies and resistance movements here, but regular armies within states that had been invaded by the Germans. Poland: a bit over a month; Denmark: a couple of hours; the Netherlands: 5 days; Belgium: 19 days; France: 6 weeks; Yugoslavia: 11 days; Greece: 25 days. Norway: 63 days. Do the math, Norway resisted the longest of all the nations conquered by Nazi Germany in World War Two. I'll edit to make that clearer and avoid any confusion. Manxruler 05:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The implication then is that the original statement should remain at the fact, and not try to rank or score it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.178 (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualty Figures Error?

The citation for the casualty figures (341 German, 6100 Allied) takes you to the site Feldgrau, but when you read the Feldgrau article and come to the section on the Blucher, you see, "as a result, the German ship rapidly rolled over on its side and sunk, taking nearly 1,000 German troops with it, including some Gestapo officials and other administrative personnel intended for the military government of Norway (the HQ of 163.Infanterie-Division was also aboard, and was also mostly lost)." The Feldgrau article concludes with a section on casualties by saying that "German forces reported that 5,636 soldiers, sailors, and airmen never returned from the Norwegian campaign." This is the source used for the allied casualty figure of 6100. It's at http://www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html. Gaintes (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Hooton is a trust worthy source. He includes total Luftwaffe losses. Dapi89 (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also query the casualties and losses. For instance, although Germany is listed as having lost ships and aircraft, it implies that the Allies didn't lose any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.132.178 (talk) 06:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't imply that. It merely doesn't list everything just yet. Manxruler (talk) 06:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Result

It was decisive victory, wasn't it?--El gato verde (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Decisive in the way that the Germans were left in control of Norway and Denmark, yes, but, and here I quote Douglas C. Dildy (Osprey, 2007, p. 90), "But was it truly worth it?. The Kriegsmarine, which had stood to gain the most from the conquest, was crippled in doing so... making the contemplated cross-Channel invasion of England in the summer of 1940 out of the question." Manxruler (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The whole german war industry was however dependant on Swedish iron ore. Without control of Norway and Allies instead there Germany's capability to wage war would have been hampered severly in all areas of production from tanks to submarines to any kinds of weapons. It was deceisive in preserving Germany's overall warfighting capability regardless of what happened to the Kriegsmarine which was not as high on the procurement lists to begin with.

Btw: Is there any reason Allied ship losses aren't mentioned compared to a rather complete listing of Axis losses? This seems a bit biased given that German destroyers got a royal beating up North but as the Allies tried to evacuate they ran into some trouble themselves. It's not like the losses weren't still hugely in favour of France and Britain solely in numbers and even more so given their far larger fleets but during the evacuation the Allies lost a couple of ships including the aircraft carrier Glorious and earlier at Namsos a french and a British destroyer got sunk as well as in the naval battles before.93.135.68.33 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a commonly held misconception. The Germans were getting iron ore from Sweden through the Baltic too. Narvik was out of commission for 6 months after the fighting, and Germany did just fine. The Allied ships lost are missing? Well, they won't be for long. "which was not as high on the procurement lists to begin with."? Original research? Manxruler (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Allies had plans to occupy Narvik and Swedish mines if they failed to cooperate in cutting the supply of iron to the Germans. The Germans secured their iron source, by occupying Norway in the process also cutting Sweden away from the Allies thereby rendering it harmless and cooperative as long as it was not suicidal (which it wasn't to mutual benefit). This is certainly a decisive victory.,—Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.40.17 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Allies did have plans to land in case of an imminent German invasion, and secure areas in Norway. Due to intelligence failures they failed in predicting the German invasion, and definitely the scale of said invasion. Any Allied plans for landings independently of German actions (and especially regarding occupying the mines in Sweden), were discarded with the end of the Finno-Soviet Winter War in March 1940. The Germans certainly secured lots of resources in Norway, and got leverage against the Swedes (until 1943, at least), yet they did lose much of their own surface fleet, had to garrison and defend occupied Norway, and pushed the Norwegian merchant fleet into Allied service. "Cutting off" the Swedes from the Allies didn't matter much, it wasn't like the Allies were on the Swedish border to begin with. and the Swedes were neutral anyway. Manxruler (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

And, rather than messing about with original research, we would need to cite a reliable source for "decisiveness". Manxruler (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Motivations for battle were mixed

It is usually stated that Germany invaded Norway to stop the british from cutting off the flow of iron ore. This is, as far as i've been able to discover, wrong.

The interesting thing is that the motivations for the campaign appear to be split. The Allies wanted to cut off iron ore exports. Germany, on the other hand wanted access to the Atlantic for their kriegsmarine.

The german navy didn't really get to fight in wwi, because they were locked up in the baltic sea. By seizing Denmark and Norway, they got bases for attacks into the Atlantic. Of course, after the defeat of France later that summer, Germany got even better bases there.

Nowhere have I heard any first accounts documenting that the iron ore export was important to the German decision making. The germans even blew up the export facility in Narvik when they had to evacuate the city.

So, the interesting thing is that both belligerents wishes to take Norway, but for different reasons. Rodnebb (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"the execution of Plan R 4 was promptly started"

Plan R4 was actually cancelled, since the Royal Navy commanders misinterpreted the movement of German warships as a break-out into the Atlantic and instead initially only sortied with warships leaving the troops (due to be deployed immediately under Plan R4) back in the UK. See e.g., Hitler Strikes North. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Proposed title creates a conflict with other articles' scopes, as shown by Srnec and SnowFire. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 20:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Operation Weserübung → German invasion of Denmark and Norway – The current article title was obscure before the creation of a Wikipedia article at this title, as you can see from the ngram. The proposed title appears to be more common even into the present day. The current title is also not recognizable to the average reader who is not versed in WWII codenames. Judging from what I've read it is most common for sources to mention this topic with some variation of the proposed title, for example ""Germany's Invasion of Denmark and Norway", "Germany invades Denmark and Norway", "Invade Norway and Denmark", "German forces invaded Norway and Denmark", "Germany suddenly invaded Denmark and Norway", "Invasion of Norway and Denmark by Germany" etc. I would also support Invasion of Denmark and Norway as a more concise title.

References

(t · c) buidhe 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 02:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• The proposed title is somewhat ambiguous. We have an article at Norwegian campaign and I can well imagine people considering that to be part of the ongoing invasion of Norway. The target of the redirect German invasion of Norway has been disputed. Of course, Weserübung equally refers to the entire campaign, but this article is about the initial invasion and not the extended fighting. I'm not sure where that leaves us. Srnec (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. The proposed main title header is a descriptive one. The current header is only recognizable to students of World War II history. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. We already have the articles German invasion of Denmark (1940) and Norwegian campaign, though? The current title isn't great and I agree it has problems from obscurity, but I think it might be worth figuring out the scope of these three articles and what they each cover. It's not clear that the proposed new title is the best description here (for all that the current title isn't great either). SnowFire (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I didn't even realize till now we had German invasion of Denmark (1940)! It seems to me that this page is best conceived as the place for discussing German planning and perhaps the first hours of the operation. For that reason, I oppose this move (for now) as only adding to the confusion, but the situation is not ideal. Srnec (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.