Nazis Invaded Norway To Forestall Allies

Northern Advocate, 29 April 1940, Page 5

Nazis Invaded Norway To Forestall Allies

Ribbentrop

Perversion Of Truth, Says Britain

LONDON, Apiyl 27. FOREIGN PRESS CORRESPONDENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS IN BERLIN WERE SUMMONED TO HEAR THE GERMAN FOREIGN MINISTER (VON RIEBENTROP) TODAY MAKE A STATEMENT ALLEGING THAT THE ALLIES HAD PLANNED TO INVADE SCANDINAVIA, AND THAT THE GERMAN ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN TO FORESTALL THEM. After making his speech, Ribbentrop assisted in the distrihiN among bis audience of a White Paper, which claims to support his allegations with evidence. Authoritative comment in London on Ribbentrop’s speech is that it is a disingenuous and deliberate perversion of the truth. The 'German radio continues to describe the speech and the White Book as the “greatest sensation in the world.” In spite of thejdatement made by Ribbentrop, says the British Official Wireless, it is officially denied that any brigadier or his staff has been captured-during Ihe operations in Norway. Ribbentrop\s statement, and the British reply, are:

Eibbemtrop

Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, said Ribbentrop.

They had no reason to do so. Hitler had stated Germany's desire to live in peace with them. But Germany had accepted the battle and was fighting it with her 'ull power. “Since an attack on the west seemed pointless,” Ribbentrop added, “and after the • conclusion 'of ' the Polish campaign, our enemies sought new means to carry on the war. “Britain and France have been seeking a new scene of war since the beginning of the year. “The small countries seemed most suitable, but England and France sought to have others fight the war and to spare themselves as much as possible.” He recalled numerous speeches by Mr Churchill, Mr Chamberlain and M. Reynaud, which, he claimed, proved that England and France were guilty. He alleged that Mr Churchill had I done his utmost to prevent peace between Russia and Finland, and also revived the story of England and France’s intention to march through Scandinavia, regardless of the wishes of neutral countries. Documents Alleged. “A large number of documents have, fallen into our hands,” said Ribbentrop. "They show that Sweden maintained an attitude of true neutrality, but that Norway actively co-operated in the Allies’ plans to march to Finland. “We took prisoner a British brigade staff, part of the Bth Battalion cf the 148th Infantry Brigade, at Hamar, and found the entire plan for the British occupation of Norway. “This proved that they intended to operate from April 6-7. “Only German intervention a few hours ahead killed the plans. “The Germans have now repulsed all the Britishers facing them in Norway.” Our Declarations Lies. Ribbentrop summed up by saying that Britain and France had been a . long time preparing for the occupation of Norway, the Government of which was ready to enter the fight shoulder to shoulder with the Allies. Only quick action by Germany had . forestalled the scheme. “The resultant declarations made by the rulers of England and France since the invasion,” he said, “are lies from the first word to the last.” Unknown Regiment. The German White Paper contained c alleged military orders showing that the sth Battalion of the “Rochesters” [ (there is no such regiment) was to go on board ship at Leith on April 8 for c a landing in Norway. German troops in Norway, it is * stated, found a diary in which an entry under April 7 read: ‘We are *■ bound for Stavanger.” , The White Paper also claims to prove that a British expedition was v already en route to Norway before Germany had decided on a counterblow. Some of the documents reproduced allegedly fell into the hands of the Germans “after the first engagement between the British and Germans in the region of Lillehammer on April c Network of British Espionage. s Included are documents which pur- \ port to prove that the Foreign Min- c ister of Norway (M. Koht) said Norway would protest, but would not resist a British occupation. British consuls and military representatives in Norway are alleged to have formed a network of espionage f in preparation for a British occupation. 1 The Germans allegedly found a document which gave details of British landings and supplies. Some documents are stated to have been found on a British officer who is , now in Berlin.

London

As regards the so-called British plans to invade Scandinavia, Ribbentrop bases his charges on alleged statements by Mr Churchill and others. The facts are as follows.— (1) It is true that the British and French Governments, ,as they have already openly declared, were determined to stop German abuse of Norwegian territorial waters. Hence the decision to lay the minefields. (2) The Allied Governments sought permission to send help to Finland via Norway and Sweden. When this was refused they did not proceed with the plan. (3) The Norwegian Government, far from deciding to enter the war on the Allies’ side, as KiDDentrop alleges, refused consistently to agree even to the passage of troops to Finland. (4) If troops had ,; been ready for landing in Norway, as Ribbentrop allieges, there would have been no delay in coming to the assistance of Norway. Such delay as occurred was due to the necessity of assembling a force.

Minefield Was Announced. (5) Had the laying of the minefields been merely preparation for a landing, to safeguard an expeditionary force already embarked, as is alleged, the Allies would not have announced it. They did so purely out of regard for neutral interests, which Germany has so shamefully disregarded. (6) The German expedition, as : subsequently admitted -non the German wireless, sailed many days . before the minefields were laid. 1 (7) It is notorious that the German landing in Norway was made possible by the activities of German secret agents. It is impudent to suggest that British agents had been preparing for a British landing. View of Neutrals. (8) The British Government is anxious that neutrals should take steps to protect themselves from German aggression, but it is patently untrue to say that the Allies seek to extend the war. The view of the neutrals is indicated by the fact that none of them have mobilised in fear of Allied aggression.