I was then day.
On March 11th 1933 I left Germany". comparatively simple. The necessary laws were passed to outlaw trade unions: the Reichstaf became a farce directly the opposition parties had been disolved and their members had been put in concentration camps. The witness Severing has spoken of the treatment of the Reichstag members. In 1932, on von Papen's order he, who was chief of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior, was forcibly removed from his office. It was not long after the 30th of January 1933, that the Communist and Social Democratic parties were decreed illegal and all form of public expression, other than by the Nazis, was prevented. This action resulted from deliberate planning. Frick had said as long before as 1927:
"The National Socialists longed for the dictatorship". throughout the world, the Nazi attitude to elections is not to be forgotten.
Free elections could not, of course, be permitted. Goering had told Schacht in February 1933 when seeking money for the Party from industry and I quote:
"The sacrifices asked for will surely be so much easier for for the next 100 years."
the evidence such as the SD report on the conduct of the plebiscite at Kappel makes clear, the occasional votes of the people, always announced as triumphs for the Nazis, were conducted dishonestly.
I turn to the third class of opposition, the Churches:- Bormann's memorandum sent in December 1941 to all Gauleiters and distributed to the SS sums up the Nazi attitude to Christianity:
"National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable.....
will disappear by itself..... All influences which might impair with the aid of NSDAP must be eliminated.
Mere and more the pastors."
The persecution of the churches makes a melancholy story. From the abundance of evidence which has been submitted to the Tribunal it is perhaps permissible to quote from a complaint to Frick made early in 1936:
"Lately half the political police reports concern clerical matters.
we have untold petitions from all kinds of cardinals, bishops and dignitaries of the Church.
Most of rules were not decreed by it.
...." And then after referring to the chaos resulting from the division of authority between the various police forces, the report goes on to refer to the results of the religious struggle:
"Instances of gross disturbances of congregations are mounting the emergency squad.
.... After discarding the rubber truncheon, cold steel, is unbearable."
The diary of the Minister of Justice for 1935 provides ample instances of the sort of behaviour which was being encouraged by the Hitler Youth under the defendant Schirach end the defendant Rosenberg. The Hitler Jugend, whose membership increased from just under 108,000 in 1932 to nearly 8,000,000 in 193 was organised on a military basis. The close collaboration between Keitel and Schirach in their military education has been described, the special arrangeme between Schirach and Himmler by which the Hitler Jugend became the recruiting organisation for the SSis in evidence.
You will not have forgotten the words of Schirach's deputy:
"In the course of years we want to ensure that a gun feels just as natural in the hands of a German boy as a pen."
What a horrible doctrine. dissolution of all organisations affording opportunity for opposition, criticism or even free speech, the systematic perversion of youth and training for war would not, however, have sufficed without persecution of the Jews. Let no one be misled by the metaphysical explanations which are put forward for this most frightful crime. What Hitler himself in this very town described as the fanaticalcombat against the Jews was part and parcel of the policy of the policy of establishing Ein Herrenvolk, which would dominate Europe and the world, and so persecution of the Jews was popularized throughout the regime. It gave the youths a butt to bully and so to acquire practical schooling in brutality. violence. The final solution of mass murder had them been conceived. In Mein Kampf of Hitler, the Bible of the Nazis, Hitler had regretted that poison gas had not been employed to exterminate the German Jews during the last war, and as early as 1925 Streicher said, "Let us make a nowbeginning to-day, so that we can annihilate the Jew."
It may be that he, even before Hitler, Himmler or the others, had visualised the annihilation of the Jews, but the Nazis were not at first ready completely to defy world opinion and they confined themselves to persecution and to making life in Germany unbearable for Jews. To the never ceasing accompaniment of the Sturmer and the official Nazi Press the campaign of Jew baiting was fostered and encouraged. Rosenberg, von Schirach, Goering, Hess, Funk, Bormann, Frick joined hands with Streicher and Goebbels. The boycott in April 1933 celebrated the Nazi accession to power and provided only a taste of what was to follow. It was accompanied by demonstrations and window smashing -- action "mirror" as it has been referred to in this Court. Accounts of typical incidents are given in the affidavit of the witness Geist who describes the events in Berlin on March 6th, 1933:
"Wholesale attacks on the Communists, Jews and those who streets, beating up, looting and even killing persons."
In 1935 followed the infamous Nuremberg Decrees. In 1938 the so-called spontaneous demonstrations ordered throughout Germany resulted in the burning of the synagogues, the throwing of 20,000 Jews into concentration camps with the accompaniment of penalties, of aryanization of property, and the wearing of a yellow star. towards the Jews appeared at Goering's meeting of 12th November 1938, when they vied with each other in suggesting methods of degrading and persecuting their helpless victims. Neither Hitler nor Himmler, whom to-day they seek to blame, was present, but who, reading record of that meeting, can doubt the end in store for the Jews of Europe? At that meeting Heydrich reported on the events of the 12th November: 101 synagogues destroyed by fire, 76 demolished and 7,500 stores ruined throughout the Reich. The approximate cost of replacing broken glass alone wasestimated at RM 6,000,000 and the damage to one store alone in Berlin at RM ,1700,000. Heydrich also reported 800 cases of looting, the killing of 35 Jews and estimated the total damage of property, furniture and goods at several hundred million Reichsmarks.
You will recall Heydrich's order for the riot, including the arrests of the Jews and their removal to concentration camps. After referring to the fact that demonstrations were to be expected in viewof the killing of a German Legation official in Paris that night, he instructs the Police on the prospective burning of synagogues, destruction of business and private apartments of Jews, and in their duty to refrain from hindering the demonstrators.
"The Police has only to supervise compliance with the instructions."
And finally:
"In all districts as many Jews, especially rich ones, are to For the time being only healthy men, not too old, 'arc to be arrested.
Upon their arrest, the appropriate concentration in these camps as fast as possible."
We now know from the evidence with regard to the seizure of the houses of Jews by Neurath and Rosenberg why the orders were to concentrate upon the richest.
These events were neither secret nor hidden. Ministers were writing to each other and discussing then. Long before 1939 they were common knowledge not only to Germany but to the whole world. Every one of these defendants must have heard again and again stories similar to that of Sollman. Almost all of them have sought to gain credit from, helping one or two Jews; and you will remember the evidence of a special office in Goering's Ministry to deal with protests, and his witness Koerner who stated with pride that Goering had always intervened on behalf of individuals. Perhaps it afforded then some gratification or eased their conscience in some way occasionally to demonstrate their influence by exempting some unhappy individual who sought their favour from the general horror of the regime which they continued to uphold. But these men participated in a Government which was conducted without any regard for human decency or established law. There is not one of them who, being a member of the Government during that period, has not got the blood of hundreds of his own countrymen on his hands.
Goering and Frick established the concentration camps; the witness Severing and the documents quoted testify to the murders which took place in them at a time when these two were directly responsible. Ever. Goering could not defend all the murders of the 30 June, 1934. He shares with Hess and Frick the responsibility for the Nuremberg Laws. The record of the meeting of the 12th November 1938 and Goering's initials on Heydrich's order of the 9th November require no comment. facts, if only from the English papers, whilst his delegate Woermann assented to the atrocities reported to the meeting of the 12th November 1938, The previous owner of his country house, Herr von Remiz was placed in a concentration comp, and he expressed his sentiments towards the Jews to M. Bonnet, on the 8th December 1938 in the following terms:
"The German Government had therefore decided to assimilate then (the Jews) with the criminal elements of the population.
taken from them. They would be forced to live in districts frequented by the criminal classes."
for the Nuremberg decrees. measures against the Jews in Austria end it seems certain that the defendant Kaltenbrunner as a faithful member of the Party was giving fullsupport to the necessary measures.
The evidence that Seyss-Inquart was playing his part is before the Tribunal. Rosenberg was writing "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" and taking his full share in the struggle against the Church and the Anti-Semitic policy of the Government: whilst even Raeder on Heroes' day 1939 was speaking of "the clear and inspiring summons to fight Bolshevism and International Jewry whose race-destroying; activities we have sufficiently experienced on own people". none for the horrors of the concentration camps and for the Gestapo, whilst Frank, as Minister of Justice for Bavaria, was presumably receiving the reports on the murders in Dachau. He was the leading jurist of the Party, a member of the Central Committee which carried out the boycott of the Jews in March 1933 and spoke on the wireless in March 1934 justifying racial legislation and the elimination of hostile political organizations. He also was present at Goering's meeting. Streicher. It was in March 1938 that the Sturmer began consistently to advocate extermination, the first article of a series which was to continue throughout the next seven years, beginning with an article signed by Streicher ending with the words: "We are approaching wonderful times -- a Greater Germany without Jews". had participated in the policy for the elimination of the Jews; he was present and assented to the recommendations at Goering's meeting in 1938 at which it will be remembered Goering suggested that it would havebeen better to kill 200 Jews, whereupon Haydrich mentioned that in fact the number was a mere 35. the first half of 1935 he found that he was wrong in thinking that Hitler would bring the "Revolutionary" force of the Nazis into a regulated atmosphere, and that he discovered that Hitler having done nothing to stop the excesses of individual Party members or Party groups, was pursuing a "policy of terror". Nevertheless he remained in office and Schacht accepted the the Golden Party Badge in January 1937 when von Elz refused it.
of Germany grew up rabid anti-Semites under his teaching. He cannot escape responsibility for training the youth to bully Jews: to persecute the Church; to prepare for war. This perversion of children is perhaps the basest crime of all. leiter of Thuringia. He cannot have been ignorant of the persecution of the Church; of the Trades Unions, of other political parties and of the Jews, throughout this important Gau, and there is every reason to suppose that he gave the fullest support to these policies and thus enhanced his reputation with the Nazis. Papen and Neurath were in a better position to judge these matters than any of the other defendants, since it was their political associates who were being persecuted, whilst, in the case of Papen, some of his own staff were killed and he himself arrested, he was lucky to escape with his life.
Neurath's attitude to the Jews is shown by his speech in September 1933:
"The stupid talk about purely internal affairs, as for example the and law in Germany."
What prostitution of these great words! tions of considerable authority. None of them can have been ignorant of what the whole world knew, yet not one of than has suggested that he made any effective protest against this regime of brutality and terror. All of these men continued in their spheres of government and in the highest positions of responsibility. Each in his part -- and each a vital part -- these men built up the evil thing, the ultimate purpose of which was so well known to them, and instilled the evil doctrines which were essential to the achievement of that purpose.
It was Lord Acton -- that great European -who, 80 years ago, in expressing his conviction of the sanctity of human life, said:
"The greatest crime is homicide. The accomplice is no better than the Assassin:
the theorist is the worst." part these men played in it, but no conclusion upon the conspiracy charge in the first count of this Indictment is really possible until the specific crimes set out in the subsequent counts have been considered. And first of these is the crime against Peace, set out in Count 2. I say first, first in its place in the Indictment. Moralists may argue which is greatest in moral guilt. But this perhaps should be said at the very outset. It is said that there is no such crime as a crime against peace, and those superficial thinkers who, whether in this Court or in armchairs elsewhere, have questioned the validity of these proceedings, have made much of this argument. Of its merits I shall say something presently. But let it be said plainly now, that these defendants are charged also as common murderers. That charge alone merits the imposition of the supreme penalty and the joinder of this crime against peace in the Indictment can add nothing to the penalty which may be imposed on these individuals. Is it, then, a mere work of supererogation to have included this matter in the indictment at all? We think not for the very reason that more is at stake here then the fate of these individuals. It is the crime of war which is at once the object and the parent of the other crimes; the crimes against humanity, the war crimes, the common murders. These things occur when men embark on total war as an instrument of policy for aggressive ends. was responsible for the deaths in battle of ten million men, and for bringing to the very edge of ruin the whole moral and material structure of our civilization. Although it may be that it may add nothing to the penalty which may be imposed upon these men, it is a fundamental part of these proceedings to establish for all time that International Law has the power, inherent in its very nature, both to declare that a war is criminal, and to deal with those who aid and abet their States in its commission.
I shall come back to the Law: let me first refer to the facts. highly controversial account of foreign relations leading up to 1939. I do not propose to follow them in that examination, nor am I concerned to say that as events have turned out, the policies pursued by the democratic powers may not sometimes have bean weak, vacillating, and open to criticism. Defense counsel have sought to hase some argument on the protocol attached to the German-Soviet Pact. They argue that it was wrong. I am not concerned with that, and of course I do not concede it. But let them argue that it was wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? Not in that international law which this Tribunal will administer. basic facts in this case, that from the time of "Mein Kampf" on, the whole aim of Nazi policy was expansion, aggression, domination, and that the democratic powers had to deal with a Germany of which that was, in spite of occasional lip service to peace, the fundamental aim. If peace was contemplated at all, it was peace only at Germany's price. And knowing that that price would not be and could not be paid voluntarily, the Germans were determined to secure it by force. the necessary measures of re-armament were taken simultaneously. At his conference on the 23rd November 1939, Hitler summed up this period of preparation in these words:
"I had to reorganize everything beginning with the mass of the people extending it to the Armed Forces.
First internal re ist ides, education to heroism.
While reorganizing internally, I national ties.
.. secession from the League of Nations and de nunciation of the Disarmament Conference.
... After that the order for rearmament.
In 1935 the introduction of compulsory armed service.
After that militarisation of the Rhineland." which prevented rearmament. In October 1935 Germany left the League of Nations and in March 1935 recounced the Armament Clauses of Versailles and informed the world of theestablishment of an air force, of a large standing army, and of conscription. Already the Reich Defence Council had been set up and its Working Committee had had its second meeting as early as 26th April 1933 with representatives from every department. It is difficult, is it not, to believe that reading the minutes of these meetings, as they must have done, Neurath, Frick, Schacht, Goering, Raeder, Keitel 26 July A LJG L16-1 and Jodl, the last two being generally present, can have supposed that the regime did not *---* war.
the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics, was made General Plenipetentiary for War Economy in May 1935 The appointment was to be a complete secret. His contribution is best expressed in his own words:
in turn made possible the results of our policy."
Schachts 'a speech on 29th November 1938 is seen to be no boast when the report of his deputy, which has been put in evidence, is considered.
That report shows that under Schacht's guidance, 180,000 industrial plants had been surveyed as to usefulness for war purposes. Economic plans for the production of 200 basic materials had been worked out. A system for the letting of war contracts had been revised, allocations of coal, motor fuel and power had been determined, RM. 248,000,000 had been spent on storage facilities alone, evacuation plans for skilled workers and war materials and military zones had been worked out; 80,000,000 wartime ration cards had already been printed and distributed to local areas and a card index on the skill of some 20,000,000 workers had been prepared. report sets out were not made without the knowledge of every member of the government and no more graphic illustration of the common purpose and awareness of the aim which permeated all departments of the State is to be found than the second meeting of the Reich Defense Counsel itself held on 25th June 1939, under the presidency of the defendant Goering, the head of the 4-year plan. The defendants Frick, Funk, Keitel and Raeder were present and Hess and Ribbentrop were represented. The methodical detail in the plans which were being worked out;26 July A LJG 16-2 the preparations in respect of manpower involving the use of concentration camp workers and the unfortunate slaves of the protectorate are eloquent testimonies of the size of the struggle upon which these men knew that Germany was about to embark.
defendants Goering, Schacht, Raeder, Keitel and Jodl, but the others, too, each in his sphere, played their parts: Rosenberg, Schirach and Streicher in education, Doenitz in the preparation of the U-boat fleet, Neurath and Ribbentrop in the field of foreign affairs. systems until the former succeeded Schacht and became Minister of Economics and in September 1938 General Plenipotentiary for Economics. As Plenipotentiary Funk was charged with ensuring the economic conditions for the production of the armament industry, according to the requirements of the High Command. Frick as Plenipotentiary for the Reich administration, with Funk and Keitel, formed the three-man college planning preparations and decrees in case of war. do more by way of summary than to quote the words of Hitler himself in the memorandum which Jodl described as written during two nights of work by the Fuehrer personally and which he sent to the defendants Raeder, Goering and Keitel. In that memorandum of 9th October 1939, Hitler Finally disposes of the evidence of these defendants that Germany was never adequately prepared for war.
"The military application of our peoples strength has been manner of effort."
and again:
"The warlike equipment of the German people is at present of German divisions, than in the year 1914.
The weapons at this time.
They have just proved their supreme war-
26 July A LJG 16-3 worthiness in a victorious campaign.
In the case of the periority of weapons."
And then, speaking of the ammunition available after the conclusion of the Polish campaign:
"There is no evidence available to show that any country than the German Reich.
.... The Air Force at present is numerically the strongest in the world.
... The AA artillery is not equalled by any country in the world."
sive rearmament carried out at the expense and with the knowledge of the whole of the German people. in semi-military formations for war and then, on reaching the age for conscription, was called up for intensive training. This was going on throughout the Reich, together with the enermous work of economic preparation. Is it to be believed that any one of these men did not guess -- did not, indeed, know -the purpose of this terrific effort? in which, to use the words of one of Neurath's witnesses, "the Nazis were able to reap cheap laurels without war through the successfully practised tactics of bluff and sudden surprise," must have opened their eyes. the model for each subsequent move. On 21st May, 1935, Hitler gave a solemn assurance that the stipulations of Versailles and Locarno were being observed. Yet three weeks earlier on the very day of the conclusion of the Franco-Soviet pact, later to become the official excuse for the re-occupation of the Rhineland, and the defense for it, before this Tribunal, the first directive had been issued to the Service Chiefs. The defendant Jodl having perhaps noted the significance of the date, has sought to persuade the Tribunal that his first admission that "Operation Schulung" referred to the reoccupation of the Rhineland was wrong, and that it applied to some military 26 July A LJG 16-4 excursion in the Tyrol.
Yet on 26th June, he himself was addressing the Working Committee of the Reich Defense Council on the plans for reoccupation and revealing that weapons, equipment insignia and field grey uniforms were being stored in the zone under conditions of the greatest secrecy. Can anyone who reads his words doubt that this process had been going on at least for seven weeks? attended that meeting and heard Jodl's remarks on the 26th June 1935 or who subsequently read the minutes, knew what to expect. On 2nd March the Civil orders were given and passed to the Navy four days later. The defendants Keitel, Jodl, Raeder, Frick, Schacht and Georing were all involved in the necessary executive action and, if his U-Boats complied with the instruction of the 6th March, the defendant Doenitz, as well.
and worked out as it could only be if those men each played his allotted part. First the period of apparent quiet, during which treaties are concluded, assurances given and protestations of friendship made while beneath the surface the Auslands organization under Hess and Rosenberg begins to undermine and disrupt. The victim is deceived by open promises and weakened by underhand methods. Next, the decision to attack is taken and military preparations are hastened. If the victim shows signs of suspicion, the assurances of friendship are redoubled. Fifth Column. Then when all is prepared, what Hitler called "the propagandist cause for starting the war" is chosen, frontier incidents are faked, abuse and threats take place of fair words and everything is done to terrify the victim into submission. Finally, the blow is struck without warning. same, the perfect example repeated again and again, of treachery, intimidatior and murder.
The next step was Austria. First, the Nazis arranged the murder of Dollfuss in 1934. After the evidence in the case of the defendant Neurath, there can be little doubt as to his assassination being plotted in Berlin and arranged by Habicht and Hitler some six weeks before. The failure of that putsh made it necessary to temporize, and accordingly in May 1935 Hitler gave a complete assurance to Austria. At tire same time the defendant papen was sent to undermine the Austrian government. With the occupation of the Rhineland Austria, was next on theprogramme but Hitler was still not yet ready, hence the solemn agreement of July 1936. By the autumn of 1937 Papen's reports showed progress and accordingly the plot was divulged at the Hosbach meeting. A slight delay was necessary for the removal of the refractory Army leaders, but in February, 1938. Papen having completed his plotting with Seyss-Inquart, Schuschnigg was lured to Berchtesgaden and bullied by Hitler, Ribbentrop and Keitel. Shortly afterwards, the final scene took place, Goering playing his part in Berlin.
The defendants, Goering, ludicrous in the light of the documents.
Not one of them has suggested that Already the plan for Czechoslovakia was ready; it had been discussed at the Hoszbach meeting in November 1937; within three weeks of the Munich 1 5th of March 1939, President Hacha having been duly bullied by Hitler, established by Frick and Neurath.
You will remember the astonishing admission really intended to do it.
Ribbentrop also seems to have considered thatin As Jodl explained:
"The solution of the Czech conflict and the annexation of basis of more or less favourable strategic promises."
And now the time has dome when, to use Hitler's words:
"Germany must reckon with its two hateful enemies, England and France."
"the formation in great secrecy but with wholehearted tenacity of a coalition against England."
advised Ribbentrop as long ago as a month before Munich in the following terms:
"It is unavoidable that the German departure from theproblems of northeast must make the Poles sit up.
The fact is that after that Poland will be the next in turn.
But the later this assumpt better.
In this sense, however, it is important for the time slogans of the right to autonomy and racial unity.
Anything else Forces could stand up to."
and again Hitler and Ribbentrop made themost explicit statements. Meanwhile the usual steps were taken, and following the meeting of the 23rd of May 1939, which Raeder described as an academic lecture on war the final military econimic andpolitical preparations for war against Poland were taken and in due time war was commenced; and you get that quotation that you have heard so often, and it ought to be remembered for all times:
"The victor shall not be asked later on whether we were telling the truth or not.
In starting and making a war, not the right is what matters, but victory."
Those were Hitler's words, but these men echoes and implemented them at every stage. That was the doctrine underlying Nazi poliye. Stop by step the conspirators had reached the crucial stage and had launched Germny upon an attempt to dominate Europe and involve the world in untol horror. Not one of these men had turned against the regime. Not one of them except Schanht - to whose vital contribution to the creation of the Nazi monster I shall return later - had resigned and even he continued to lend his name to the Nazi Government.
Would that be a convenient place to adjourn?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
SIR HARTLEY SHAWCROSS: If it please the Tribunal: Germany's military aims and the interests of her strategy would be improved by further aggression. I do not propose to take time now by tracing again the various steps. As Hitler aaid at the meeting in November 1939:
"...Breach of the neutrality of Belgium and Holland is meaingless. No one will question that when we have won we shallnot bring about a breach of neutrality as in 1941."
Norway and Denmark were invaded. No kind of excuse, then or now, has been put forward for the occupation of Denmark, but a strenuous attempt has teen made in the course of this trial to suggest that Norway was invaded only because the Germans believed that the Allies were about to take a similar step. Even if it were true, it would be no answer, but the German documents complete dispose of the suggestion that it was for such a reason that the Germans violated Norwegian neutrality. I quote: "No war could be carried on if the Navy was not able to safeguard the ore imports from Scandinavia." was made with Denmark on 31 May 1939 following the usual assurances to both Norway and Denmark which had already been given a month earlier. At the outbreak of the war a further assurance was made to Norway, followed by another on the 6th October. On the 6th September, 4 days after his assurance, Hitler was discussing with Raeder the Scandinavian problem and his political intentions in regard to the Nordic States, expressed in Admiral Assman's diary as:- "a north Germanic community with limited sovereignty in close dependence on Germany." memorandum for the information of Raeder, Goering and Keitel, Hitler was writing of the great danger of the Allies blocking the exit for U-boats between Norway and the Shetlands and of the consequent importance of "the creation of U-boat strongpoints outside these constricted home bases." Where outside the constricted home basis if not in Norway?
the comparative advantages of the different Norwegian bases, having discussed the matter with Raeder some six days before. The strategic advantages were apparent to all these men and the hollowness of the defense that the invasion of Norway was decided upon because it was believed that the Allies were going to invade is completely exposed when you consider the statement in Hitler's memorandum preceding the passage I have just quoted that:
"Provided no completely unforeseen factors appear their neutrality in the future is also to be assured. The continuation of German trade with these countries appears possible even in a war of long duration."
Rosenberg and Goering's deputy, Koerner, had been in touch with Quisling and Hagelin as early as June and it is clear from Rosenberg's subsequent report that Hitler had been kept fully informed. In December the time for planning had arrived and the decision to prepare for invasion was accordingly taken at a meeting between Hitler and Raeder. It was not long before Keitel and Jodl issued the necessary directives and in due course as necessary Goering, Doenitz and Ribbentrop were involved. there would be no danger to the Nordic States from the Allies. All the alleged intelligence reports contain no information which comes within miles of justifying an anticipatory invasion based -- you might think it is laughable -on the doctrine of self-preservation. It is true that in February 1940 Raeder pointed out to him that if England occupied Norway the whole Swedish supply of ore to Germany would be endangered but on the 26th March he advised that the Russo-Finnish conflict having ceased, the danger of an Allied landing was no longer considered serious. Nonetheless he went on to suggest that the invasion, for which all the directives had been issued, should take place at the next new noon, on the 7th April. It is interesting to note that Raeder's own war diary signed by himself and his Chief of Staff Operations records a similar opinion four days earlier. If further evidence were needed to show that the actual step was taken regardless of any risk of interference from the West, it is to be found in telegrams from the German Ministers at both Oslo and Stockholm and from the German Military Attache at Stockholm, advising the German Government that, far from being worried over invasion by the British, the Scandinavian Governments were apprehensive that it was the Germans who intended to invade.