Page 50 of 50 FirstFirst ... 40454647484950
Results 491 to 493 of 493

Thread: Norway in WW2

  1. #491
    Senior Member
    Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 03:09 PM
    North Western Europe
    South Africa South Africa
    Transvaal Transvaal
    South Africa
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    405 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    A parliamentary constitutional monarchy (like Norway, the Netherlands or Belgium were during that era) is democracy, different from monarchy. You got a kingdom in name only here.
    No it isn't, while they have a parliament and the role of the monarch is widely ceremonial, it isn't entirely so. They e.g. can refuse to appoint ministers or sign legislation. Structurally those countries were most like the Allied countries, although Norway had no colonies unlike Belgium or the Netherlands (And France and Britain of course). And well I presume the elites were more sympathetic to the Allied side than to the Axis.

  2. #492
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    Danish Swede
    Danelaw < Roslagen
    Vinland Vinland
    Newfoundland and Labrador Newfoundland and Labrador
    West of New Sweden and Maryland
    Zodiac Sign
    Married parent
    North Sea Empire
    Asatru Folk Assembly
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    384 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Verðandi View Post
    After the defeat of the Nazis it was buried, ripped down by resistance fighters and covered with soil.

    Tor Einar Fagerland, professor of History at the NTNU in Trondheim, now wants the pillar to be unearthed.

    “Norwegian nationalism is often described as being positive and inclusive,” he told Aftenposten. “But Behring Breivik and Varg Vikernes' variants of racist nationalism shows that extreme nationalism also exists in our society. A partial unearthing of the monument will force the realisation that political extremism is something that is also found here, and not only there, amongst others,” he said.
    'Let's necromance our suffering and commiserate in infamy!' Meanwhile, in the States, they all want to bury their past and pretend it didn't happen. I applaud Norway's traditional aspirations to sovereignty at any cost, but will not defend this 'virtue signaling' of today.

    From history, it just so happens that Anglo-Scandinavian relations are traditionally more relaxed and indirect than the typical impositions and extractions directly between Germany and Scandinavia. A lot of folks are plain ignorant about this, especially the period of Christianisation, when the Nordic kings wanted evangelisation by English rather than German missionaries and bishops, but the Pope didn't care and the Kaiser wanted the proceeds. Unlike with England, Scandinavia had very little leeway and ability to gain leverage with Germany. Look what happened to Denmark in Livonia when Germany got involved--it seems they'd rather let Sweden have Estonia if they could than the former take it as they already took Wendland after the joint Baltic Crusade yielded fruitless results for Denmark's sake. That's because Sweden was under Mecklenburg, Denmark was under Pomerania and England was under Normandy, with Norway shut out on the environs, but each North Germanic kingdom was in the same condition, as a satellite state of the Holy Roman Empire, whether under the Arnulfing establishment or thereafter. Surely, there was really nothing Germany, France, Lombardy or Burgundy would do to break the mould of this Christendom which they WISHED was in their own West Germanic image, no matter how badly it choked the life out of truly free Germanics and really wasn't the same as the Constantinian model of Byzantium, which was formerly maintained by the Arian East Germanics in pure imitation.

    Hellenes regained supremacy of their temporal culture despite incorporating Orthodox Patriarchy, whereas Catholic Papacy incorporated Germans as inferiors within their spiritual culture, in a reverse power play. I'd rather be a German with the choice of spirituality, so agree with the Reformation on that point, because we're not Greeks and it shouldn't be up to priests what we do with the governance of our society either. We see how patriotic the Muscovite patriarch is and wonder why any would put up with anything less than that, except for the shame of Holocaustianity inducing interdicts and 'friendly fire' Crusades against ostensibly ecumenically sound Christendom in the face of Judaism and Islam, etc. That's why the Fourth Crusade attempted to replicate Papal supremacy inasmuch as the Crusaders already swallowed up Outremer that belonged to the Greeks, by conspiracies with Armenia and usurping Cyprus, etc. I am not opposed to simply wanting land belonging to the Greeks, but the Christian sectarian arguments were so fake. None of this, of course, was ever a problem in Heathen days and they were honest about it. Christianity is simply not based upon such hearts on sleeves and frankness but treachery and intrigue.

    It's obvious that Breivik and Vikernes would have preferred a Byzantine approach to culture, had Norway been in the position to effect any kind of authority over their own society, without the clerical infrastructure infecting every aspect of life, but nobody seems to care about any of those things, if they are duped into believing that they're living high on the hog. Nowadays, the Cultural Marxists do exactly the same thing as Christianity before, in hampering any real sense of freedom beyond 'copes' in hopes of material betterment. Both are extremely derogatory to our Heathen Aryan heritage and yet, their extremist positions are given free passes by so many cowards today, because they alone, somehow 'mean well' when they are hateful. These double standards are the most absurd, but a fantasy worldview props them up. Too many are unable to simply look at life without some concocted/conceited imagination running wild in its place. That's the reason why one can be an ideologue, but never a demagogue, even though they are two sides of the same coin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chlodovech View Post
    Ten years ago Hevneren contended somewhere in this thread that Norway would've resisted a Franco-British invasion as well as a German offensive - I never forgot that - but a few months ago on YouTube I discovered the Norwegian government's intentions in the case of that eventuality.
    I've always been of two minds on Hevneren. One, Hev was an unabashed nationalist who passionately believed in his own, without any superior entanglements whatsoever. On the other hand, Hev was too politically correct and this meant being an apologist for the status quo--wherever they would stand. I teased Hev about how much he reminded me of Breivik and Vikernes, but it drove him bloody bonkers to face the logical conclusion of anyone willing to go the distance for his blood and soil. Hev would cry about Christianity and yet, negatively moralise everything whenever self-defence became self-promotion, so it was a real struggle for him to triumph over cognitive dissonance. Hev really just offered civic nationalism no more genuine than Trump, which I'm sure would seem irksome in his sight.

    This is similar to the liberal elitism of the civilising 'New Imperialism', which is undoubtedly root of our troubles today. All these empires wanted to siphon off of foreign constituencies when they were held underfoot overseas, but became economically moralist about it and decided to import whole outlander societies to the home fronts in order to feed their xenophilia, because it was 'too racist' to impose elsewhere and thought nothing of reversing this for 'equity'. Well, it wasn't unduly burdensome when actual colonisation happened and that meant 'boots on the ground' by those with vested interests in personal and familial livelihoods, rather than the monied class with ledgers and vague ideologies to satiate. Traditional imperialism was the greatest achievement known to our society, because it was lebensraum for our blut und boden, something that landing on the Moon epitomised.

  3. #493
    6th army lives matter
    Chlodovech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Holy Roman Empire Holy Roman Empire
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    1,540 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Theunissen View Post
    No it isn't, while they have a parliament and the role of the monarch is widely ceremonial, it isn't entirely so. They e.g. can refuse to appoint ministers or sign legislation.
    This is all legal fiction, a constitutional fairy tale.

    Signing legislation is a formality, monarchs can't really refuse that without wrecking their legitimacy and ending their dynasty in this setup. It has happened in Belgium only once since 1945 and the parliament cornered the king, then declared him unfit to rule for a brief period of time and the new abortion law was still passed - refusing to appoint a minister never even happened. Pre-war West-European monarchs had a bit more power than today, but politicians still were the decision makers. It's all make-believe and a farce - just like having "the king as the head of the armed forces", they're not involved with any military decision making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Whilst the Constitution of Norway grants important executive powers to the King, these are almost always exercised by the Council of State in the name of the King (King's Council, or cabinet). Formally the King appoints the government according to his own judgment, but parliamentary practice has been in place since 1884. Constitutional practice has replaced the meaning of the word King in most articles of the constitution from the king personally to the elected government. The powers vested in the monarch are significant but are treated only as reserve powers and as an important security part of the role of the monarchy.

    The King does not, by convention, have direct participation in government. He ratifies laws and royal resolutions, receives and sends envoys from and to foreign countries and hosts state visits. He has a more tangible influence as the symbol of national unity.

    The King has to sign all laws in order for them to become valid. He can veto any law. However, if two separate Stortings approve the law, it becomes valid even without the King's consent. The Crown has not vetoed any law since the dissolution of the union with Sweden.
    if you want to call a democracy with a lame duck monarch for a head of state a monarchy, the only way a royal can still play a ceremonial role in this day and age in Europe, very well, but that is a far cry from actual monarchy - and which political scientist would do that? That little bit of power kings and queens still have doesn't justify calling a de facto democracy a monarchy.
    “As brothers and sisters we knew instinctively that if we were going to stand in darkness, best we stand in a darkness we had made ourselves.” - Douglas Coupland

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Chlodovech For This Useful Post:

Page 50 of 50 FirstFirst ... 40454647484950

Similar Threads

  1. Iceland in WW2
    By Sågverksarbetaren in forum Iceland
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Monday, April 12th, 2021, 02:26 AM
  2. NS sympathizers in the US during WW2
    By Mac Seafraidh in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, April 12th, 2021, 12:18 AM
  3. What Was the Best WW2 Army for You?
    By SS Charlemagne in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: Saturday, October 24th, 2020, 11:20 PM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sunday, April 19th, 2009, 12:56 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts