Regardless of political or historical sympathies, "the truth must be known".
These articles in short discuss the following themes:
1) The events before the invasion of Norway - the actions of the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, Germany and France.
- Germany was consciously and willingly provoked by the Western Powers to occupy Norway and Denmark, in order to prevent British seizure of the Norwegian coast and secure transport of iron ore to Germany etc.
2) The sabotage of Norwegian defence during the 1930s, by those politicians who sent defenceless young soldiers out to die in 1940.
3) The role of NORTRASHIP (Norwegian merchant fleet) in the British WW II strategy (to be greatly expanded) and the blockade against Germany.
For obvious reasons, these matters has been left most obscure, since the Western Powers forced Norway to take side in the battle in 1939, more than one half year before she was attacked by Germany. This attack was therefore, and for other reasons, legitimate - in terms of international law.
4) The events during the invasion, such as the co-operation of Norwegians with the German occupation forces against fellow Norwegians - before the Capitulation 10 June, 1940.
- Some of the 'leading clique' after the war had co-operated extensively with the occupiers during the first time of occupation but nevertheless escaped trial and punishment since they held the right membership (Labour Party ). The matter was hushed down by turning attention elsewhere, to "the honest collaborators".
5) The nature of the capitulation, according to international law; and therefore the nature of the Norwegian exile government in London.
- The treaty of capitulation was deliberately and demonstrable concealed from the Norwegian public, and the eventual published translations were not only faulty, but false. In consequence of the capitulation, Norway did not enjoy acceptance neither of its representatives for a sovereign nation nor did Norway enjoy - consequently - acceptance as an ally in war against Germany. Furthermore and consequently, the 350.000 strong Germans army in Norway did later not capitulate and turn over their equipment to representatives of Norway but rather to Great Britain's General Thorpe. Therefore the Norwegian King Haakon did not return until the British authorities accepted this.
6) The extensive co-operation with the occupation forces during the war, and in particular the 'lost' documents recording the economic co-operation.
-This made a trial against a minority possible - as a trial against a majority would have been ridiculous.
7) The legal and political apparatus after the war came to be dominated by a 'clique'.
- The clique seems to have acted contrary to international practice of law and the division of performatory roles, more precisely regarding legislative and executive powers.
8) As a consequence of the confusion over the terms of the capitulation, Norway has until this day been divided over the trial and punishment of only some of the political collaborators.
- This behaviour contrast strongly with the advice Norway preaches around the world in the many peace negotiations where it takes part and the Norwegian advice of reconciliation. Against its own people there is no reconciliation - even after 60 years - in the old tradition of a puritanical and self-righteous Norway thinking in terms of 'black and white' / 'good and evil' without any nuances.
Neither has there been any will to deal thoroughly with the any of the other points above.
Norwegian public reports consequently avoid the above issues, even in the report published in 2005.
9) The trials in 1945 seems to have been political trials of the loosing party by the winning party, i.e. the Moscow oriented socialists in the Labour Party tried the national socialists in the NS party. What counted was not actual crime nor actual law, but party membership.
10) These trials paved the way for Norwegian double standards ever after. To receive absolution a nation too must repent.