dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MAJOR JONES: 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 they could get away. He died in hospital 2 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 Beet 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 the 9th of 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 the 9th of April and drove blithely past a 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.
MAJOR JONES: 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 criticizes as defect 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 the 19th of April rule by Gauleiter had replaced rule by Norwegians. The final document is Document C-41, which will be Exhibit GB-96, whim is a memorandum dated the 3rd of June 1940 signed by Fringe, who, of course, has no connection with the Defendant Fried Fricke was at that date the head of the operations division of the German naval war staff, a key appointment in the very nerve center of German naval operations. That is why, as the Tribunal noticed, he came to be initialing 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 white 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 tone for the future of Greater Germany.
MAJOR JONES: 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 organized that they can in the future be considered as German possessions. "This solution will recommend itself for areas where the severity of the decision tells, and should tell, on the enemy and where a gradual germanizing 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 Hango, remain permanently as an enclave in the hostile state. Such areas might be considered possible 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 and being politically, economically, and militarily completely dependent on Germany.
MAJOR JONES: 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, 7 Dec.45 and Norway are forced into a dependence on us which will enable us in any circumstances and at any tune easily to occupy these countries again-then in practice the same, but psychologically much more, Will be achieved." Then Fricke recommends: "me solution given in 3), therefore, appears to be the proper one-that is, to crush France, to occupy Belgium and part of northern and eastern France, 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 that and other documents 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. [A recess was taken.]
MR. ROBERTS: May it please the Tribunal, it is my duty to present that part of Count Two which relates to the allegations with regard to Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. In Charges II , III , IV , IX , XI , XIII , XIV , XVIII , XIX , and XXIII 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 Importunate countries, the Netherlands and Belgium; especially Belgium, which for so many centuries was the cockpit of Europe. The independence of Belgium was guaranteed as the Tribunal will remember, in 1839 by the great European powers. mat guarantee was observed for 75 years until it was shamelessly broken in 1914 by the Germans, 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 25 years after in 1940 as the Tribunal already knows. The first treaty which was mentioned in these charges is the Hague Convention 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 1925. 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. My Lords, 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 Reichspesetzblatt, which perhaps I may call ROB 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.
MR. ROBERTS: That is the second or third document, T - 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 read only Article I: "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 whim 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 Lords, there follow all the clauses which deal 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 10 years, and then shall remain in force for successive periods of 5 years until denounced by either party. And this treaty never was denounced by Germany at all. I put that document in as 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 GB-18, and I need not, 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. That is the Treaty of Arbitration and Conciliation between Germany and Luxembourg signed at Geneva in 1929.
MR. ROBERTS: May I just read the first few words of Article 1, which are familiar: "The contracting parties undertake to settle by peaceful means in accordance with the present treaty 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, 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 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 it had entered itself 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. And so My Lord, on the 30th of January 1937, perhaps because littler 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 which will be Exhibit GB-99, gave the solemn assurance-he used the word "solemn"-to Belgium and to the Netherlands.
MR. ROBERTS: That has already been reed 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 not 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 TW34, 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 have taken cognizance with particular interest of the public declaration in which the Belgian Government define the international position of Belgium. For their part they have repeatedly given expression, especially through the declaration of the Chancellor of the German Reich in his speech of the 30th of January 1937, to their own point of view. The German Government have 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 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 regard it as appropriate to define now their own attitude towards Belgium. To this end they make the following declaration: "First: The German Government have taken note of the views which the Belgian Government have thought fit to express.
MR. ROBERTS: That is to say, (a) of-the policy of independence which they intend to exercise in full sovereignty; (b) of their determination to defend the frontiers of Belgium with all their 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 efficient manner to this purpose. "Second: The German Government consider that the inviolability and integrity of Belgium are common interests of the Western Powers. They confirm their determination that in no circumstances will they impair this inviolability and integrity, and that they 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. "Third: The German Government, like the British and French Governments, are prepared to assist Belgium should she be subjected to an attack or to invasion." And then, on the following page: "The Belgian Government have taken note with great satisfaction of the declaration communicated to them this day by the German Government. They thank the German Government warmly for this communication." My Lord, 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. You have before you to try the leaders of the German Government and the leaders of the German Armed Forces. One doesn't have to prove, does one, that every one of those accused must have known perfectly well of that solemn undertaking given by his government?
MR. ROBERTS: Every one of these accused in their various spheres of activity-some more actively than the others-were party to the shameless breaking of that treaty two and a half years afterwards, and I submit that on the ordinary laws of inference and justice an those men must be fixed as active participators in that disgraceful breach of faith which brought misery and death to so many millions. Presumably it win be contended on the part, for instance, of 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. That this declaration of October 1937 meant very little to 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-to one sentence or two. The document comes into existence on the 25th of August 1938 at the time when the Czechoslovakian drama was unfolding, and it was uncertain at that time whether there would be war with the Western Powers. It is top secret, prepared by the 5th section of the General Staff of the German Air Force. The subject: "Extended Case Green-Estimate of the Situation." Probably the more correct words 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 II and it comes at the bottom of Page 6, the last page but one of the document. Now E, "Requests to Armed Forces Supreme Command, Army and Navy,'. This, you see, was an appreciation addressed by an Air Force staff of finer. So these are requests to the Army and Navy.
MR. ROBERTS: And then if one turns over the page, Number 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." The point that the Prosecution desires to make on that document is that it is apparently assumed by the staff officer who prepared this, and assumed quite rightly, that the leaders of the German nation and 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 their leaders. Now in March of 1939 as has been proved, the remainder of Czechoslovakia was peacefully annexed; and then 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, Major Elwyn Jones. They bear the number GB-78. I need not read them again. There is also a guarantee to Luxembourg, which is on the next page, TC-42 (a). That was given in the same speech by Hitler in the Reichstag 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. May I, before I read this document, say that I believe 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.
MR. ROBERTS: 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, Estonia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Hungary, Romania, 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 counterquestion 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 her neighbors.