Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/tgmwc-02-15.03
Last-Modified: 1999/09/14

The next paragraph was read by the learned British Attorney
General in his speech and I will refer only to the last
paragraph but one:

  "The German attack came as a surprise and all the invaded
  towns along the coast were captured according to plan
  with only slight losses. In the Oslofjord, however, the
  cruiser 'Blucher', carrying General Engelbrecht and parts
  of his division, technical staffs and specialists, who
  were to take over the control of Oslo, was sunk. The plan
  to capture the King and members of the Government and
  Parliament failed. In spite of the surprise of the
  attack, resistance was organised throughout the country."

That is a brief picture of what occurred in Norway.

What happened in Denmark is described in a memorandum
prepared by the Danish Royal Government, a copy of which I
hand in as Exhibit GB 94, and an extract from which is in
Document D-628, which follows the TC documents.

  "Extracts from the memorandum concerning Germany's
  attitude towards Denmark before and during the
  occupation, prepared by the Royal Danish Government.
  
  On 9th April, 1940 at 0420 hours" - in the morning that
  is - "the German Minister appeared at the private
  residence of the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs
  accompanied by the Air Attache of the Legation. The
  appointment had been made by a telephone call from the
  German Legation to the Secretary General of the Ministry
  for Foreign Affairs at 4 o'clock the same morning. The
  Minister said at once that Germany had positive proof
  that Great Britain intended to occupy bases in Denmark
  and Norway. Germany had to safeguard Denmark against
  this. For this reason German soldiers were now crossing
  the frontier and landing at various points in Zealand,
  including the port of Copenhagen; in a short time German
  bombers would be over Copenhagen; their orders were not
  to bomb until further notice. It was now up to the Danes
  to prevent resistance, as any resistance would have the
  most terrible consequences. Germany would guarantee
  Denmark territorial integrity and political independence.
  Germany would not interfere with the internal government
  of Denmark, but wanted only to make sure of the
  neutrality of the country. For this purpose the presence
  of the German Wehrmacht in Denmark was required during
  the war.

                                                  [Page 196]

  The Minister for Foreign Affairs declared in reply, that
  the allegation concerning British plans to occupy Denmark
  was completely without foundation; there was no
  possibility of anything like that. The Minister for
  Foreign Affairs protested against the violation of
  Denmark's neutrality which, according to the German
  Minister's statement, was in progress. The Minister for
  Foreign Affairs declared further that he could not give a
  reply to the demands, which had to be submitted to the
  King and the Prime Minister, and further observed that
  the German Minister knew, as everybody else, that the
  Danish Armed Forces had orders to oppose violations of
  Denmark's neutrality, so that fighting presumably had
  already taken place. In reply, the German Minister stated
  that the matter was very urgent, especially to avoid air
  bombardment."

What happened thereafter is described in a dispatch from the
British Minister in Copenhagen to the British Foreign
Secretary, which the Tribunal will find in D-627, the
document preceding the one which I have just read. That
document, for the purposes of the record, will be Exhibit GB
95.

That dispatch reads:

 "The actual events of the 9th April have been pieced
 together by members of my staff either from actual eye-
 witnesses or from reliable information subsequently
 received, and are given below. Early in the morning
 towards 5 o'clock, three small German transports steamed
 into the approach to Copenhagen harbour, while a number of
 aeroplanes circled overhead. The Northern battery,
 guarding the harbour approach, fired a warning shot at
 these planes when it was seen that they carried German
 markings. Apart from this, the Danes offered no further
 resistance, and the German vessels fastened alongside the
 quays in the Free Harbour. Some of these aeroplanes
 proceeded to drop leaflets over the town, urging the
 population to keep calm and co-operate with the Germans. I
 enclose a specimen leaflet, which is written in a bastard
 Norwegian-Danish, a curiously un-German disregard of
 detail, together with a translation. Approximately 800
 soldiers landed with full equipment and marched to
 Kastellet, the old fortress of Copenhagen, and now
 barracks. The door was locked, so the Germans promptly
 burst it open with explosives and rounded up all the
 Danish soldiers within, together with the womenfolk
 employed in the mess. The garrison offered no resistance,
 and it appears that they were taken completely by
 surprise. One officer tried to escape in a motor car, but
 his chauffeur was shot before he could get away. He died
 in hospital two days later. After seizing the barracks, a
 detachment was sent to Amalienborg, the King's palace,
 where they engaged the Danish sentries on guard, wounding
 three, one of them fatally .. Meanwhile, a large fleet of
 bombers flew over the city at low altitude."

Then, the last paragraph of the dispatch reads:
 
 "It has been difficult to ascertain exactly what occurred
 in Jutland. It is clear, however, that the enemy invaded
 Jutland from the South at dawn on 9th April, and were at
 first resisted by the Danish forces, who suffered
 casualties. The chances of resistance were weakened by the
 extent to which the forces appear to have been taken by
 surprise. The chief permanent official of the Ministry of
 War, for instance, motored into Copenhagen on the morning
 of 9th April, and drove blithely past a
 
                                                  [Page 197]

  sentry who challenged him, in blissful ignorance that
  this was not one of his own men. It took a bullet, which
  passed through the lapels of his coat, to disillusion
  him."

The German memorandum to the Norwegian and Danish
Governments spoke of the German desire to maintain the
territorial integrity and political independence of those
two small countries.

I will close by drawing the Court's attention to two
documents which indicate the kind of territorial integrity
and political independence the Nazi conspirators
contemplated for the victims of their aggression. I will
first draw the Court's attention to an entry in Jodl's
diary, which is the last document in the book, on the last
page of the book, the entry dated 19th April:

  "Renewed crisis. Envoy Brauer" - that is the German
  Minister to Norway - "is recalled: since Norway is at war
  with us, the task of the Foreign Office is finished. In
  the Fuehrer's opinion force has to be used. It is said
  that Gauleiter Terboven will be given a post. Field
  Marshal" - which, as the Court will see from the other
  entries, is presumably a reference to the defendant
  Goering - "is moving in the same direction. He criticises
  as defects that we did not take sufficiently energetic
  measures against the civilian population, that we could
  have seized electrical plant, that the Navy did not
  supply enough troops. The Air Force cannot do
  everything."

The Court will see from that entry and the reference to
Gauleiter Terboven that already, by 19th April, rule by
Gauleiters had replaced rule by Norwegians.

The final document is Document C-41, which will be Exhibit
GB 96, which is a memorandum dated 3rd June, 1940, signed by
Fricke, who, of course, has no connection with the defendant
Frick. Fricke was, at that date, the head of the Operations
Division of the German Naval War Staff, which was a key
appointment in the very nerve centre of German naval
operations. That is why, as the Tribunal noticed, he came to
be initialling the important Naval documents.

That memorandum is, as I have said, dated 3rd June, 1940,
and relates to questions of territorial expansion and bases.

  "These problems are pre-eminently of a political
  character and comprise an abundance of questions of a
  political type, which it is not the Navy's province to
  answer, but they also materially affect the strategic
  possibilities open - according to the way in which this
  question is answered - for the subsequent use and
  operation of the Navy.
  
  It is too well known to need further mention that
  Germany's present position in the narrows of the
  Heligoland Bight and in the Baltic - bordered as it is by
  a whole series of States and under their influence is an
  impossible one for the future of Greater Germany. If,
  over and above this, one extends these strategic
  possibilities to the point that Germany shall not
  continue to be cut off for all time from overseas by
  natural geographical facts, the demand is raised that
  somehow or other an end shall be put to this state of
  affairs at the end of the war.
  
  The solution could perhaps be found among the following
  possibilities.
  
      1. The territories of Denmark, Norway and Northern
      France acquired during the course of the war continue
      to be so occupied and organised that they can in
      future be considered as German possessions.

                                                  [Page 198]

  This solution will recommend itself for areas where the
  severity of the decision tells, and should tell, on the
  enemy and where a gradual 'Germanising' of the territory
  appears practicable.
  
      2. The taking over and holding of areas which have no
      direct connection with Germany's main body, and
      which, like the Russian solution in Hangoe, remain
      permanently as an enclave in the hostile State. Such
      areas might be considered possibly around Brest and
      Trondheim.
      
      3. The power of Greater Germany in the strategic
      areas acquired in this war should result in the
      existing population of these areas feeling themselves
      politically, economically and militarily to be
      completely dependent on Germany. If the following
      results are achieved - that expansion is undertaken
      (on a scale I shall describe later) by means of the
      military measures for occupation taken during the
      war, that French powers of resistance (popular unity,
      mineral resources, industry, armed forces) are so
      broken that a revival must be considered out of the
      question, that the smaller States such as the
      Netherlands, Denmark and Norway are forced into a
      dependence on us which will enable us in any
      circumstances and at any time easily to occupy these
      countries again, then in practice the same, but
      psychologically much more, will be achieved."

Then Fricke recommends:-

  "The solution given in 3, therefore, appears to be the
  proper one, that is, to crush France, to occupy Belgium,
  part of North and East France, and to allow the
  Netherlands, Denmark and Norway to exist on the basis
  indicated above."

Then, the culminating paragraph of this report of Fricke
reads as follows:-

   "Time will show how far the outcome of the war with
   England will make an extension of these demands
   possible."

The submission of the prosecution is that this and other
documents which have been submitted to the Court tear apart
the veil of the Nazi pretences. These documents reveal the
menace behind the good will of Goering; they expose as
fraudulent the diplomacy of Ribbentrop; they show the
reality behind the ostensible political ideology of
tradesmen in treason like Rosenberg, and finally, and above
all, they render sordid the professional status of Keitel
and of Raeder.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now adjourn.

(A recess was taken.)

MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal: it is my duty to
present that part of Count 2 which relates to the
allegations with regard to Belgium, the Netherlands, and
Luxembourg. In Charges 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 23
there are charges of violating certain treaties and
conventions and violating certain assurances. So far as the
treaties are concerned, some of them have been put in
evidence already, and I will indicate that when I come to
them. May I, before I come to the detail, remind the
Tribunal of the history of these unfortunate countries, the
Netherlands and Belgium; Belgium especially, which for so
many centuries was the cockpit of Europe.

The independence of Belgium was guaranteed, as the Tribunal
wilt remember, in 1839 by the great European powers. That
guarantee was

                                                  [Page 199]

observed for seventy-five years, until it was shamelessly
broken by the Germans in 1914, who brought all the horrors
of war to Belgium, and all the even greater horrors of a
German occupation of Belgium. History was to repeat itself
in a still more shocking fashion some twenty-five years
after, in 1940, as the Tribunal already knows.

The first treaty which was mentioned in these charges is The
Hague Conventions of 1907. That has been put in by my
learned friend, Sir David, and I think I need say nothing
about it.

The second treaty is the Locarno Convention, the Arbitration
and Conciliation Convention of 1935. My Lord, that was
between Germany and Belgium. That was put in by Sir David.
It is Exhibit GB 15, and I think I need say nothing more
about that either.

Belgium's independence and neutrality was guaranteed by
Germany in that document.

My Lord, the next treaty is The Hague Arbitration Convention
of May, 1926, between Germany and the Netherlands. That
document I ought formally to put in. It is in the
Reichsgesetzblatt, which perhaps I may call R.G.B. in the
future, for brevity; and it, no doubt, will be treated as a
public document. But in my bundle of documents, which goes
in the order in which I propose to refer to them, I think it
is more convenient for the presentation of my case. That is
the second or third document, TC-16.

THE PRESIDENT: It is Book 4 is it?

MR. ROBERTS: It is Book 4, my Lord. This is the Convention
of Arbitration and Conciliation between Germany and the
Netherlands, signed at The Hague in May, 1926. Your
Lordships have the document; perhaps I need only read
Article 1:

  "The contracting parties" - those are the Netherlands and
  the German Reich - "undertake to submit all disputes of
  any nature whatever, which may arise between them which
  it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy and which
  have not been referred to the Permanent Court of
  International justice, to be dealt with by arbitration or
  conciliation as provided."

And then, my Lord, there follow all the clauses which deal
merely with the machinery of conciliation, and which are
unnecessary for me to read. May I just draw attention to the
first article, Article 21, which provides that the
Convention shall be valid for ten years, and then shall
remain in force for successive periods of five years until
denounced by either party. This treaty never was denounced
by Germany at all.

The Treaty I put in is Document TC-16, which will be Exhibit
GB 97; and a certified copy is put in and a translation for
the Court.

As the Tribunal already knows, in 1928 the Kellogg-Briand
Pact was made at Paris, by which all the powers renounced
recourse to war. That is put in as Exhibit GB 18, and I need
not, I think, put it in or refer to it again.

Then the last of these treaties, all of which, of course,
belong to the days of the Weimar Republic, is the
Arbitration Treaty between Germany and Luxembourg, executed
in 1929. That is Document TC-20 in the bundle. It is two
documents further on than the one the Tribunal has referred
to last. This is the Treaty of Arbitration and Conciliation
between Germany and Luxembourg, signed at Geneva in 1929.
May I just read the first few words of Article I, which are
familiar:

                                                  [Page 200]

  "The Contracting parties undertake to settle by peaceful
  means all disputes of any nature whatever which may arise
  between them and which it may not be possible to settle
  by diplomacy."

And then there follow the clauses dealing with the machinery
for peaceful settlement of disputes, which follow the common
form.

My Lord, those were the treaty obligations. May I put in
that last treaty, TC-20, which will be Exhibit GB 98.

My Lord, those were the treaty obligations between Germany
and Belgium at the time when the Nazi Party came into power
in 1933, and, as you have heard from my learned friend,
Hitler adopted and ratified the obligations of Germany under
the Weimar Republic with regard to the treaties which had
been entered into. My Lord, nothing more occurred to alter
the position of Belgium until in March, 1936, Germany
reoccupied the Rhineland and announced, of course, the
resumption of conscription and so on. And Hitler, on 7th
March, 1936, purported, in a speech, to repudiate the
obligations of the German Government under the Locarno Pact,
the reason given being the execution of the Franco-Soviet
Pact of 1935. Sir David has dealt with that and has pointed
out that there was no legal foundation for this claim to be
entitled to renounce obligations under the Locarno Pact. But
Belgium was, of course, left in the air in the sense that
she had entered into various obligations under the Locarno
Pact in return for the liabilities which other nations
acknowledged, and now one of those liabilities, namely, the
liability of Germany to observe the Pact, had been
renounced.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor