So long as it is not forced to do so by measures taken by England and France.
German forces."
Britain. That is the 1st of March. And this is the memorandum which was produced as an excuse on the 9th of April.
The last two paragraphs of the Nazi combination of diplomatic hypocracy and military threat.
They read:
"The Reich Government thus expects that the Royal Norwegian Govern German measures and offer no resistance to it.
Any resistance would have can take place without friction and difficulty.
In the spirit of the good independence of the Kingdom of Norway now or in the future."
What the Nazis meant by "protection of the kingdom of Norway" was shown by their conduct on the 9th of April.
I now refer the Court to Document Exhibit TC-56, which would be GB-93, which is a report by the Commander in Chief of the Royal Norwegian Forces. It is as the beginning of the Document Book, the last of the TC documents.
I will not trouble the Court with the first page of the report. If the Tribunal will turn to the second page, it reads:
"The Germans, considering the long lines of communications and the threat of the British Navy, clearly understood the necessity of complete surprise and speed in the attack. In order to paralyse the will of the Norwegian people to defend their country and at the same time to prevent allied intervention it was planned to capture all the more important towns along the coast simultaneously. Members of the Government and Parliament and other military and civilian people occupying important positions were to be arrested before organized resistance could be put into effect and the King was to be forced to form a new government with Quisling as the head." in his speech and I will only refer 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 organized throughout the country." the Royal Danish Government, a copy of which I hand in as Exhibit GE-94, and an extract from which is in 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 the 9th of April, 1940 at 4.20 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 4.00 o'clock the same morning. The Minister said at once that Germany had positive proofs 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.
"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 already took place. In reply the German Minister expressed that the matter was very urgent, not least to avoid air bombardment." 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 purposes of the record, will be GB-95.
That dispatch reads:
"The actual events of the 9th April have been pieced together by subsequently received and are given below.
Early in the morning towards 5 o'clock three small German transports steamed into the approach to Copen hagen harbour, whilst a number of airplanes circled overhead.
The north planes when it was seen that they carried German markings.
Apart from fastened alongside the quays in the Free Harbor.
Some of these airplanes calm and cooperate with the Germans.
I enclose a specimen of this leaflet, disregard of detail, together with a translation.
Approximately 800 fortress of Copenhagen and now a barracks.
The door was locked, so the completely by surprise.
One officer tried to escaps in a motor car, but his chauffeur was shot before they 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 altitudes."
Then, the last paragraph of the dispatch reads:
"It has been difficult to ascertain exactly what occurred, in Jutland...
suffered casualties.... The chances of resistance were weakened by the extent to which the forces appear to have been taken by surprise.
The one of his own men.
It took a bullet, which passed through the lapels of his coat, to disillusion him."
I will close by drawing the Court's attention to two documents which I will first draw the Courts attention to an entry in Jodl's Diary which "Renewed crisis.
Envoy Braver 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 Marshall" -- 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 criticizes as defents that we didn't we could have seized electrical plant, that the Navy didn't supply enough troops.
The Air Force can't do everything."
course, has no connection with the Defendant Frick. Fricke was at that then.
That is why, as the Tribunal noticed, he came to be initialing the "These problems are pre-eminently of a political character which it is not the Navy's province to answer, but they also "It is too well known to need further mention that Germany's present position in the narrows of the Heligoland the future of Greater Germany.
If, over and above this, one "The solution could perhaps be found among the "1) The territories of Denmark, Norway and "This solution will recommend itself for areas where the enemy and where a gradual 'Germanizing' of the "2) The taking over and holding of areas which have no direct connection with Germany's main body, permanently as an enclave in the hostile State.
Such "3) The power of Greater Germany in the strategic 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 (popular unity, mineral resources, industry, Armed Forces) are so broken that a revival must be considered will be achieved."
Then Fricke recommends:
"The solution given in 3), therefore, appears to be Denmark and Norway to exist on the basis indicated above."
as follows:
"Time will show how far the outcome of the war with England will make an extension of these demands possible." which have been submitted to the Court tear apart the veil of the Nazi pretenses. 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.
(Whereupon at 1115 hours a short recess was taken.)
MR. G. D. ROBERTS: Hay it please the Tribunal: It is my duty to present that part of Count II 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, who for so many centuries was the cockpit of Europe. remember, in 1839 by the great European powers. That guarantee was observed for seventy-five years, when 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 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. Convention of 1907. They have been put in by my learned friend, Sir David, and I think I need say nothing about them at all.
ciliation Convention, of 1935. My Lord, that was between Germany and Belgium. That was put in by Sir David. It is GB 15, and I think I need say nothing more about that.
Belgium's independence and neutrality was guaranteed by Germany in that document. 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 RGD 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's 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 I:
"The contracting parties"-- these 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." merely with the machinery of conciliation, which are unnecessary for me to read. May I just draw attention to the last Article, Article 21, which provides that the Convention shall be valid for ten years, and then to remain in force for successive periods of five years until denounced by either party. And this treaty never was denounced by Germany at all.
GB 97, and a certified copy is put in and a translation for the Court. was made at Paris, by which all the powers renounced recourse to war. That is put in as GB 18, and I needn't, I think, put it in or refer to it again.
Then the last treaty, 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 last referred to--TC 20, on the right-hand top corner. That 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 1, which are familiar:
"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. obliged to my friend Captain Gordon. May I put in that last treaty, TC 20, which will be GB 98. 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, nothering more occurred to alter the position of Belgium until March 1936. Germany reoccupied the Rhineland; announced, of course, the resumption of conscription; and so on. And Hitler, on the 7th of March, 1936, purported in a speech to repudiate the obligations of the German Government under the Locarno Pact, the reason being given as 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 it had entered itself into various obligations under the Locarno Pact in return for the liabilities which other nations acknowledged, and now one of these liabilities, namely, the liability of Germany to observe the Pact, had been renounced.
Hitler realized the position of Belgium and of the Netherlands, Hitler in the next document in the bundle, TC 33 and 35, which I hand in and will be GB 99, gave solemn assurance--he used the word "solemn". That has already been read by the Attorney General, and so I don't want to read it again. But the Tribunal will see that it is a full guarantee. In April of 1937, in a document which is net before the Court, France and England released Belgium from her obligations under the Locarno Pact. It is a matter of history and it does occur in an exhibit, but it hasn't been copied. Belgium, of course, gave guarantees of strict independence and neutrality, and France and England gave guarantees of assistance should Belgium be attacked. And it was because of that that Germany, on the 13th of October, 1937, in the next document, gave a very clear and unconditional guarantee to Belgium--Document TC 34, which I offer in evidence as Exhibit GB 100--the German declaration of the 13th of October, 1937, which shows the minutes:
"I have the honor on behalf of the German Government to make the following communication to Your Excellency: The German Government has taken cognizance with particular interest of the public declaration in which the Belgium Government defines the inter-national position of Belgium. For its part, it has repeatedly given expressions, especially through the declaration of the Chancellor of the German Reich in his speech of January 30th, 1937, to its own point of view. The German Government has also taken cognizance of the declaration made by the British and French Governments on the 24th of April 1937". That is a document to which I have previously referred. "Since the conclusion of a treaty. . ."
THE PRESIDENT: When you are reading a document to which you attach importance, would you go a little bit slower?
MR. ROBERTS: I certainly will. A little bit slower or faster?
THE PRESIDENT: Slower in the documents you attach great importance to.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes. "Since the conclusion of a treaty to replace the Treaty of Locarno may still take some time, and being desirous of strengthening the peaceful aspirations of the two countries, the German Government regards it as appropriate to define now its own attitude towards Belgium. To this end, it makes the following declaration: First, the German Government has taken note of the views which the Belgian Government has thought fit to express. That is to say, (a) of the policy of independence which it intends to exercise in full sovereignty; (b) of its determination to defend the frontiers of Belgium with all its forces against any aggression or invasion and to prevent Belgian territory from being used for purposes of aggression against another state as a passage or as a base of operation by land, by sea, or in the air, and to organize the defense of Belgium in an effecient manner to this purpose. Two: The German Government considers that the inviolability and integrity of Belgium are common interests of the Western Powers. It confirms its determination that in no circumstances will it impair this invoilability and integrity, and that it will at all times respect Belgian territory except, of course, in the event of Belgium's taking part in a military action directed against Germany in an armed conflict in which Germany is involved.
The German Government, like the British and French Governments, is prepared to assist Belgium should she be subjected to an attack or to invasion."
And then, on the following page: "The Belgian Government has taken note with great satisfaction of the declaration communicated to it this day by the German Government. It thanks the German Government warmly for this communication."
My Lords, may I pause there to emphasize that document. There, in October of 1937, is Germany giving a solemn guarantee to this small nation of its peaceful aspiration towards her, and its assertion that the integrity of the Belgian frontier was a common interest between her and Belgium and the other Western Powers. and the leaders of the German armed forces. One doesn't have to prove, does one, that everyone of those accused must have known perfectly well of that solemn undertaking given by its government? Every one of these accused, in their various spheres of activity, some more active than the other, were a party to the shameless breaking of that treaty eighteen months afterwards, and I submit that on the ordinary laws of inference and justice all those men must be fixed as active participators in that disgraceful breach of faith which brought misery and death to so many millions. Keitel and Jodl, that they were merely honorable soldiers carrying out their duty. This Tribunal, no doubt, will inquire what code of honor they observe which permits them to violate the pledged word of their country. the leaders and to the high command of Germany can be seen by the next document, which is Document PS 375 in the bundle. It is already an Exhibit, USA 84, and has been referred to many times already. May I just refer or remind the Tribunal of one sentence or two.
The document comes into existence on the 24th of August 1938, at the time when the Czech drama--the Czechoslovakia drama-was unfolding, and it was uncertain at that time whether there would be war with the Western Powers. It is Top Secret, addressed to the General Staff of the 5th Section of the German Air Force. The Subject: Extended Case Green - Estimate of the Situation. Probably the more correct word would be "Appreciation of the Situation with Special Consideration of the Enemy." Apparently some staff officer had been asked to prepare this appreciation. In view of the fact that it has been read before, I think I need only read the last paragraph, which is paragraph No. H, and it comes at the bottom of page 6, the last page but one of the document. Now H:
"Requests to Armed Forces Supreme Command, Army and Navy." This, you see, was appreciation addressed by an Air Force staff officer. So these are requests to the Army and Navy. And then, if one turns over the page, No. 4:
"Belgium and the Netherlands would, in German hands, represent an extraordinary advantage in the prosecution of the air war against Great Britain as well as against France. Therefore it is held to be essential to obtain the opinion of the Army as to the conditions under which an occupation of this area could be carried out and how long it would take, and in this case it would be necessary to reassess the commitment against Great Britain." is that it is apparently assumed by the staff officer who prepared this, and assumed quite rightly that the leaders of the German nation, the high command, would not pay the smallest attention to the fact that Germany had given her word not to invade Holland or Belgium. They are recommending it as a militarily advantageous thing to do, strong in the knowledge that, if the commanders and the Fuehrer agree with that view, treaties are to be completely ignored.
Such, I repeat, was the honor of the German Government and of its leaders. Czechoslovakia was peacefully annexed, and then there came the time for further guarantees in the next document, the assurances, TC 35 and 39, which were given to Belgium and the Netherlands on the 28th of April 1939.
Those have been read, by my learned friend, Mr. Elwyn Jones. They bear number GB 78. I need not read them again. TC 42A. That was given in the same speech by Hitler in the Reichstag, and this 42A was where Hitler was dealing with a communication from Mr. Roosevelt who was feeling a little uneasy on the other side of the Atlantic as to Hitler's intentions, and may I, before I read this document, say that I believ the Tribunal will be seeing a film of the delivery by Hitler of this part of this speech, and you will have the privilege of seeing Hitler in one of his jocular moods because this was greeted and was delivered in a jocular vein, and you will see in the film that the defendant Goering, who sits above Hitler in the Reichstag, appreciates very much the joke, the joke being this:
That it is an absurd suggestion to make that Germany could possibly go to war with any of its neighbors, and that was the point of the joke that everybody appears to have appreciated very much.
Now, if I may read this document:
"Finally Mr. Roosevelt demands the readiness to give him an assurance that the German fighting forces will not attack the territory or possessions of the following independent nations, and above all, that they will not march into them. And he goes on to name the following as the countries in question: Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Esthonia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.
"Answer: I started off by taking the trouble to find out in the case of the countries listed, firstly, whether they feel themselves threatened and secondly and particularly, whether this question Mr. Roosevelt has asked us was put as the result of a demarche by them or at least with their consent.
"The answer was a general negative, which in some cases took the form of a blunt rejection. Actually, this counter-question of mine could not be conveyed to some of the states and nations listed, since they are not at present in possession of their liberty (as for instance Syria), but are occupied by the military forces of democratic states, and therefore, deprived of all their rights.
"Thirdly, apart from that, all the states bordering on Germany have received much more binding assurances and, above all, much more binding proposals than Mr. Roosevelt asked of me in his peculiar telegram."
You will see that, although that is sneering at Mr. Roosevelt, it is suggesting in the presence, certainly, of the accused Goering as being quite absurd that Germany should nurture any warlike feeling against its neighbors, but the hollow falsity of that and the preceding guarantee is shown by the next document. May I put this 42A in as GB 101.
The next document, which is Hitler's conference of the 23rd of May, has been referred to many times and is marked USA 27. Therefore, I need only very shortly remind the Tribunal of two passages. First of all, on the first page, it is interesting to see who was present: The Fuehrer; Goering, Admiral Raeder, Brauchitsch, Colonel General Keitel, and various others who are not accused. Colonel Warlimont was there. He, I understand, was Jodl's deputy. Then, may I refer to the third page, down at the bottom. The stencil number is 819:
(Reading)
"What will this struggle be like?"
And then these words:
"The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied by armed force. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored."
Then, at the bottom:
"Therefore, if England intends to intervene in the Polish war, we must occupy Holland with lightening speed. We must aim at securing a new defence line on Dutch soil up to the Zuider Zee."
There is that decision made: "Declarations of neutrality must be ignored," and there is the Grand Admiral present, and there is the Air Minister and Chief of the German Air Force, and there is General Keitel present. They all appear, and all their subsequent actions show that they acquiesced in that -- that to give your word and then break it.
That is their code of honor, and you will see that at the end of the meeting, the very last page -- the stencil number is 823 -- Field Marshall Goering asked one or two questions.
There was the decision -- the 23rd of May. Is it overstating the matter to submit that any syllable of guarantee, any assurance given after that, is just purely hypocrisy, is just the action -- apart from the multiplicity of the crimes here -- of the common criminal?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Roberts, I think we would like you, so far as possible, to confine yourself to the document.
MR. ROBERTS: Yes, sir. Milord, then we go to the 22nd of August, 798-PS. That has already been put in and is USA 29. Milord, that was Hitler's speech on the 22nd of August. It has been read and re-read. I only, Milords, refer to one passage, and that is at the bottom of the second page:
"Attack from the West from the Maginot Line: I consider this impossible, "Another possibility is the violation of Dutch, Belgian, and Swiss neutrality I have no doubts that all these states as well as Scandinavia will defend their neutrality by all-available means," Milords, I desire to emphasize the next sentence:
"England and France will not violate the neutrality of these countries."
Then I desire to comment. I ask your Lordship to bear that sentence in mind, that correct prophecy, when remembering the excuses given for the subsequent invasion of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Milords, the next documents are TC-36, 40 and 42. Those are three assurances. Number 36 is by the Ambassador of Germany in the Belgium Government.
(Reading)
"In view of the gravity of the international situation, I am expressly instructed by the Head of the German Reich to transmit to Your Majesty the following communication:
"Though the German Government is at present doing everything in its power to arrive at a peaceful solution of the questions at issue between the Reich and Poland, it nevertheless desires to define clearly, here and now, the attitude which it proposes to adopt towards Belgium should a conflict in Europe become inevitable.
"The German Government is firmly determined to abide by the terms of the declaration contained in the German note of October 13, 1937. This provides in effect that Germany will in no circumstances impair the inviolability and integrity of Belgium and will at all times respect Belgium territory. The German Government renews this undertaking; however, in the expectation that the Belgium Government, for its part, will observe an attitude of strict neutrality and that Belgium will tolerate no violations on the part of a third power, but that, on the contary, she will oppose it with all the forces at her disposal. It goes without saying that if the Belgium Government were to adopt a different attitude, the German Government would naturally be compelled to defend its interests - in conformity with the new situation thus created." ment? I submit it is clear that the decision having been made to violate the neutrality as we know, those last words were put in to afford some excuse in the future.