Talk:Norwegian armed forces in exile

Change the name to "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile"?

I'm appreciate the effort that has gone into creating this article, but I don't like the name. It conjures up imagines of the Free French Forces, and France and Norway were in completely different situations. France had surrendered and a new competing military force (to the French forces under Vichy control) was set up abroad. In the case of Norway the government, together with the remnants of the armed forces, escaped to the UK. There the Norwegian Armed Forces were rebuilt. I think this article should change name to "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile". -- Nidator ^{T / C} 14:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, on one side we've got the fact that in Norwegian terminology the forces abroad are called Utefronten, which would roughly translate to the Forces Abroad, or the Forces in Exile. So in that respect I suppose that "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile" would be closer to that than the present title. However, the Belgians are also listed with Free Forces. What will settle this matter is what is the common name for the forces in English. That should be researched. Manxruler (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As always, references are key. I searched a little and come up with the following.

1. A British academic named Chris Mann, an expert on Scandinavian military history, has written chapters in a couple of books on the subject.[1]

‘The Norwegian Armed Forces in Britain, 1940-45’ in Martin Conway and J. Gotovich, Europe in Exile, Oxford: Bergahn Press.

‘The Norwegian Army in Exile’ in M. Bennett and P. Latawski (eds) Armies in Exile, London: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005.

2. On 28 May 1941 Norway and the United Kingdom signed the Armed Forces Agreement.[2] It includes the following passages:

"I. AGREEMENT of the 28th May, 1941, between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Royal Norwegian Government concerning the organisation and employment of the Norwegian Armed Forces in the United Kingdom and two explanatory notes forming part of the Agreement:"

"1. The Norwegian Armed Forces shall be equipped, paid and maintained at the expense of the Norwegian Government."

3. We can also look at the Inter-Allied Declaration (12 June 1941), and the Declaration by the United Nations (1 January 1942). In the former the Norwegian party is referred to as "the Government of Norway", while the French party is referred to as the "the Representatives of General de Gaulle, leader of Free Frenchmen". In the latter Norway is a party, while the Free French are not.

I don't know if the Belgian article is correctly named, but the Norwegian Armed Forces in exile certainly were not the "Free Norwegian Forces" in the sense of the "Free French Forces".

While you correctly point to the common name policy, I would like to point out that it also includes a paragraph on not using an ambiguous or inaccurate names even if the are more frequently used. I think "Free Forces" has connotations that makes it inaccurate with regards to this subject. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on your research, I support the name change. I'd go with "Norwegian Armed Forces in exile", seeing as this involves not just Norwegian forces in the UK, but elsewhere as well. Manxruler (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No protests, so a-moving we go. Manxruler (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)