Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression On the 2d September, the day after he had invaded Poland and
seized Danzig, he again expressed his determination to
observe the inviolability and integrity of Norway in an aide
memoire which was handed to the Norwegian Foreign Minister
by the German Minister in Oslo on that day. (TC-31 )
A month later, on 6 October 1939, he said in a public
speech:
"Germany has never had any conflicts of interest or
even points of controversy with the Northern States,
neither has she any to-day. Sweden and Norway have both
been offered nonaggression pacts by Germany and have
both refused them solely because they do not feel
themselves threatened in any way."
When the invasion of Norway and Denmark had already begun in
the early morning of the 9th April, a German memorandum was
handed to the Governments of those countries attempting to
justify the German action. Various allegations against the
Governments of the invaded countries were made. It was said
that Norway had been guilty of breaches of neutrality. It
was said that she had allowed and tolerated the use of her
territorial waters by Great Britain. It was said that
Britain and France were making plans themselves to invade
and occupy Norway
[Page 629]
and that the Government of that country was prepared to
acquiesce in such an event.
I do not propose to argue the question whether or not those
actions were true or false. That question is irrelevant to
the issue before this Court. Even if the allegations were
true (and they were patently false), they would afford no
conceivable justification for the action of invading without
warning, without declaration of war and without any attempt
at mediation or conciliation. Aggressive war is none the
less aggressive war because the State which wages it
believes that other states may take similar action. The rape
of a nation is not justified because it is thought she may
be raped by another. Nor even in self-defense are warlike
measures justified except after all means of mediation have
failed and force is actually being exercised against the
State concerned.
In actual fact, with the evidence which we now possess it is
clear that the invasion of these countries was undertaken
for quite different purposes, that it had been planned long
before any question of breach of neutrality or occupation of
Norway by England could ever have occurred. It is clear also
that the assurances repeated again and again throughout the
year 1939 were made for no other purpose than to lull
suspicion in those countries and to prevent them taking
steps to resist the attack against them which was under
active preparation.
For some years, Rosenberg, in his capacity of Chief of the
Foreign Affairs Bureau (APA) of the NSDAP, had interested
himself in the promotion of fifth column activities in
Norway, and close relationship was established with the
"Nasjonal Samling", a political group headed by the now
notorious traitor, Vidkun Quisling (007-PS). During the
winter of 1938/39, APA was in contact with Quisling and
later Quisling conferred with Hitler, Raeder, and Rosenberg.
In August 1939 a special 14 day course was held at the
school of the office of Foreign Relations in Berlin for 25
followers whom Quisling had selected to attend. The plan was
to send a number of selected and "reliable" men to Germany
for a brief military training in an isolated camp. These
were to be area and language specialists to German special
troops who were taken to Oslo on coal barges to undertake
political action in Norway. The object was a coup in which
Quisling would seize his leading opponents in Norway,
including the King, and prevent all military resistance from
the beginning. Simultaneously Germany was making military
preparations. On 2d September 1939, Hitler had assured
Norway of his intention to respect her neutrality, and on
6th October he said that the
[Page 630]
Scandinavian States were not menaced in any way, yet on 3d
October 1939 Raeder was pointing out that the occupation of
bases, if necessary by force, would greatly improve the
strategic and economic position (1546-PS). On the 9th
October Doenitz was recommending Trondheim as the main base
with Narvik as an alternative base for fuel supplies.
Rosenberg was reporting shortly afterwards on the
possibility of a coup d'etat by Quisling immediately
supported by German military and naval forces. On the 12th
December 1939 Raeder advised Hitler, in the presence of
Keitel and Jodl, that if Hitler was favourably impressed by
Quisling, OKW should prepare for the occupation of Norway,
if possible with Quisling's assistance, but if necessary
entirely by force. Hitler agreed but there was a doubt
whether action should be taken against the Low Countries or
Scandinavia first. Weather conditions delayed the march
against the Low Countries. In January instructions were
given to the Germany Navy for the attack on Norway, and on 1
March 1940, a Directive for the occupation was issued by
Hitler. The general objective was not said to be to prevent
occupation by English Forces but in vague and general terms
to prevent British encroachment in Scandinavia and the
Baltic and "to guarantee our ore bases in Sweden and give
our Navy and Air Force a wider start line against Britain."
But the Directive went on:
"** on principle we will do our utmost to make the
operation appear as a peaceful occupation the object of
which is the military protection of the Scandinavian
States *** it is important that the Scandinavian States
as well as the Western opponents should be taken by
surprise by our measures. *** In case the preparations
for embarkation can no longer be kept secret the leader
and the troops will be deceived with fictitious
objectives."
The form and success of the invasion are well known. In the
early hours of the 9th April 7 cruisers, 14 destroyers, and
several torpedo boats and other small craft carried advance
elements of 6 divisions totalling about 10,000 men, forced
an entry and landed troops in the outer Oslo Fjord,
Kristiansand, Stavanger, Bergen, Trondheim, and Narvik. A
small number of troops were also landed at Arendal and
Egersund on the southern coast. In addition airborne troops
were landed on aerodromes near Oslo and Stavanger. The
German attack came as a surprise and all the invaded towns
along the coast were captured according to plan with only
slight losses. Only the plan to capture the Ring and members
of the Government and the Parliament failed. Brave as the
resistance was that was hurriedly organized throughout
[Page 631]
the country, nothing could be done in the face of the long-
planned surprise attack and on 10 June military resistance
ceased. So was another act of aggression brought to
completion.
Almost exactly a month after the attack on Norway, on 10 May
1940 the German Armed Forces, repeating what had been done
25 years before, streamed into Belgium, the Netherlands, and
Luxembourg according to plan -- the plan that is, of
invading without warning and without declaration of War.
What was done was of course a breach of the Hague Convention
of 1907, and is so charged. It was a violation of the
Locarno Agreement and Arbitration Convention with Belgium of
1925 which the Nazi Government affirmed in 1935, only
illegally to repudiate it two years later. By that agreement
all questions incapable of settlement by ordinary diplomatic
means were to be settled by arbitration. You will see the
comprehensive terms of these agreements. It was a breach of
the Treaty of Arbitration and Conciliation signed between
Germany and the Netherlands on 20 May 1926; it was a
violation of the similar Treaty with Luxembourg on 11
September 1929. It was a breach of the Briand-Kellogg Pact.
But those Treaties had not perhaps derived in the minds of
the Nazi Rulers of Germany any added sanctity from the fact
that-they had been solemnly concluded by the Governments of
pre-Nazi Germany.
Let us consider the specific assurances and undertakings
which the Nazi Rulers themselves gave to the States which
lay in the way of their plans against France and England and
which they always intended to attack. Not once, not twice,
but eleven times the clearest assurances were given to
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. On those
assurances solemnly and formally expressed, those countries
were entitled to rely. In respect of their breach these
Defendants are charged. On 30 January 1937 Hitler said:
"As for the rest, I have more than once expressed the
desire and the hope of entering into similar good and
cordial relations with our neighbours. Germany h-as,
and here I repeat this solemnly, given the assurance
time and time again, that, for instance, between her
and France there cannot be any humanly conceivable
points of controversy. The German Government has
further given the assurance to Belgium and Holland that
it is prepared to recognize and to guarantee the
inviolability and neutrality of these territories."
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Volume
I Chapter IX
Opening Address for the United Kingdom
(Part 12 of 17)