Good depends on what the goal was. He was quite popular before the war as he was working on improving welfare. The problem was that defence was getting less priority, which made Norway easy to take.
But he was leading the oversees governemnt from London which was seen as quite positive.
Here is a norwegian encyclopedia about him: https://snl.no/Johan_Nygaardsvold
Not really good nor awful, I would say. Nygaardsvold implemented social democratic reforms that helped many Norwegians, but he neglected the military and Norway’s defense, leaving the country vulnerable to the maneuverings of great powers during WWII. He failed to respond effectively when Britain and Germany began acting aggressively and ultimately panicked when Germany invaded. Any political skill he may have had was completely overshadowed by the German invasion.
That’s a strange thing to wonder about. Well he had social politics that made life better for the average Norwegian.
Then some bad politics from das über land made an end for that progress for a few years, actually not only stopped it but regressed it.
What does on call a national leader who take all of the gold an run?
«Johan Nygaardsvold was one of the Labour Party’s strongest and most unifying forces, both as a speaker and an agitator. Alongside Einar Gerhardsen, he has stood as the most towering leader of the Labour Party in the twentieth century. Nygaardsvold was also personally popular within all the other political parties. (…)
The 1945 Investigation Commission
The Gerhardsen government had appointed an investigation commission to assess the actions of the Nygaardsvold government both before and after 9 April. (…)
In the debate on the matter in the Odelsting, Nygaardsvold took the floor and gave a thorough review of all the accusations against the government. He criticised the Investigation Commission for focusing solely on the government’s defence and security policy in the years 1935–1940, and for ignoring the preconditions for this policy: the dismantling of the Armed Forces up to 1935 under the bourgeoisie and their timid attitude to the economic crisis in the country up to that point. The matter was left at that, and the Odelsting finally concluded: ‘The matter does not give rise to any action on the part of the Odelsting.’ At the end of the debate, C. J. Hambro concluded as follows: ‘They did the best they could. Therein lies their excuse and therein lies their judgement.’
In retrospect, historians who have examined what happened in the period before the outbreak of war have concluded that the misjudgements of German military power made in this country were hardly more serious than those made in other countries. Among the general public, however, the Nygaardsvold government, and especially Foreign Minister Halvdan Koht, were held responsible for 9 April in the first years after the war. The bitter mood immediately after the peace eased with the passing of time.»
Translated with DeepL.com .
Good domestic politician. He failed in the April days 1940, but so did many other Norwegian politicians.
subjective….
Lmao? Were you a good person? Lmao rofl up your ass
Like most popular politicians, he focused on his perception more than the big picture, because so do voters.
He just happened to be doing that when the big picture decided to focus on him and his nation.
He probably didn’t get great advice from his military command – the fact that the escape of the King and government ultimately relied on randomness – the fact that Birger Eriksen had balls of steel and with his troops alone he managed to slow down the attack on Oslo of few precious hours is testament to that: the entire brass weren’t obviously neither prepared not coordinated nor they had planned enough. On the flip side, he didn’t seem overly interested in seeking it. He had five years to do things before then attacks and it was not just a big focus.
In their defense, the situation is very clear today in hindsight but back then Hitler was just one of the various strongmen around and only six month in what many hoped was just a limited campaign (bit like Putin’s today, had not Ukraine resisted successfully, unlike Poland at the time).
Politicians are politicians: they will always have a skewed perception of the world and all too often skew it even further to appease voters. It goes with a job, nobody rational can be a good politician for long.
Never heard of him
It’s a bit… weird to ponder whether he was a good politician or not and then sign off with “Laughing My Ass Off”… -Isnt it?
11 comments
Good depends on what the goal was. He was quite popular before the war as he was working on improving welfare. The problem was that defence was getting less priority, which made Norway easy to take.
But he was leading the oversees governemnt from London which was seen as quite positive.
Here is a norwegian encyclopedia about him: https://snl.no/Johan_Nygaardsvold
Not really good nor awful, I would say. Nygaardsvold implemented social democratic reforms that helped many Norwegians, but he neglected the military and Norway’s defense, leaving the country vulnerable to the maneuverings of great powers during WWII. He failed to respond effectively when Britain and Germany began acting aggressively and ultimately panicked when Germany invaded. Any political skill he may have had was completely overshadowed by the German invasion.
That’s a strange thing to wonder about. Well he had social politics that made life better for the average Norwegian.
Then some bad politics from das über land made an end for that progress for a few years, actually not only stopped it but regressed it.
What does on call a national leader who take all of the gold an run?
From the encyclopaedia Store Norske Leksikon:
https://snl.no/Johan_Nygaardsvold
«Johan Nygaardsvold was one of the Labour Party’s strongest and most unifying forces, both as a speaker and an agitator. Alongside Einar Gerhardsen, he has stood as the most towering leader of the Labour Party in the twentieth century. Nygaardsvold was also personally popular within all the other political parties. (…)
The 1945 Investigation Commission
The Gerhardsen government had appointed an investigation commission to assess the actions of the Nygaardsvold government both before and after 9 April. (…)
In the debate on the matter in the Odelsting, Nygaardsvold took the floor and gave a thorough review of all the accusations against the government. He criticised the Investigation Commission for focusing solely on the government’s defence and security policy in the years 1935–1940, and for ignoring the preconditions for this policy: the dismantling of the Armed Forces up to 1935 under the bourgeoisie and their timid attitude to the economic crisis in the country up to that point. The matter was left at that, and the Odelsting finally concluded: ‘The matter does not give rise to any action on the part of the Odelsting.’ At the end of the debate, C. J. Hambro concluded as follows: ‘They did the best they could. Therein lies their excuse and therein lies their judgement.’
In retrospect, historians who have examined what happened in the period before the outbreak of war have concluded that the misjudgements of German military power made in this country were hardly more serious than those made in other countries. Among the general public, however, the Nygaardsvold government, and especially Foreign Minister Halvdan Koht, were held responsible for 9 April in the first years after the war. The bitter mood immediately after the peace eased with the passing of time.»
Translated with DeepL.com .
Good domestic politician. He failed in the April days 1940, but so did many other Norwegian politicians.
subjective….
Lmao? Were you a good person? Lmao rofl up your ass
Like most popular politicians, he focused on his perception more than the big picture, because so do voters.
He just happened to be doing that when the big picture decided to focus on him and his nation.
He probably didn’t get great advice from his military command – the fact that the escape of the King and government ultimately relied on randomness – the fact that Birger Eriksen had balls of steel and with his troops alone he managed to slow down the attack on Oslo of few precious hours is testament to that: the entire brass weren’t obviously neither prepared not coordinated nor they had planned enough. On the flip side, he didn’t seem overly interested in seeking it. He had five years to do things before then attacks and it was not just a big focus.
In their defense, the situation is very clear today in hindsight but back then Hitler was just one of the various strongmen around and only six month in what many hoped was just a limited campaign (bit like Putin’s today, had not Ukraine resisted successfully, unlike Poland at the time).
Politicians are politicians: they will always have a skewed perception of the world and all too often skew it even further to appease voters. It goes with a job, nobody rational can be a good politician for long.
Never heard of him
It’s a bit… weird to ponder whether he was a good politician or not and then sign off with “Laughing My Ass Off”… -Isnt it?
Comments are closed.