Fifteenth Day:
Friday, 7th December, 1945
[Page 195]
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.
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]
That dispatch reads:
[Page 197]
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:
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.
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.
[Page 198]
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."
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]
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 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]
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.
[
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.
(Part 3 of 9)
[MAJOR ELWYN JONES continues]
"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.
"Extracts from the memorandum concerning Germany's
attitude towards Denmark before and during the
occupation, prepared by the Royal Danish Government.
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.
"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
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.
"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.
"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.
Then Fricke recommends:-
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.
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.
"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 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 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.