8 Jan. 46
diplomat to London that his opinion was not taken into
account, either by himself or by Hitler. In either case, he was
completely uninterested in anything which his ambassador might have to
tell him of opinion in London or the possibility of war. And I conceive
myself speaking with great moderation in putting it this way. That in
the last days before the 1st of September 1939 this defendant did
whatever he could to avoid peace with Poland and to avoid anything which
might hinder the incursion of the war which we know he wanted. He did
that, well knowing that war with Poland would involve Great Britain and
France. These details were given in full by Colonel Griffith-Jones; I am
not going through them again. But I have, for the convenience of the
Tribunal, referred to the transcript at Pages 1000 to 1059 (Volume III,
Pages 219 to 261), and M. Lipski summarized all that took place in his
report of the 10th of October 1939, which is. Document TC-73, Number
147, which is Exhibit GB-27.
Now these are the actions of this defendant in the Polish matter. I am
glad to inform the Tribunal that with regard to the other countries they
are very much shorter than with regard to Poland.
I now come to Norway and Denmark. I remind the Tribunal of the fact, if
it cares to take cognizance thereof, that on the 31st of May 1939 the
Defendant Ribbentrop, on behalf of Germany, signed a non-aggression pact
with Denmark which provided that "the German Reich and the, Kingdom
of Denmark will under no circumstances go to war or 'employ force of any
other kind against one another." This is Exhibit GB-77, Document
TC-24. And just to fix the date, the Tribunal will remember that on the
9th of April 1940 the German Armed Forces invaded Denmark and at the
same time they invaded Norway.
With regard to Norway there are three documents which show that this
defendant was fully informed of the earlier preparations for that act of
aggression. The Tribunal will remember that my friend, Major Elwyn
Jones, did indicate with some particularity the relations between
Quisling and the Defendant Rosenberg. But Rosenberg in this case also
required the. help of the Defendant Ribbentrop and, if the Tribunal
would be good enough to turn to Document 957-PS, which I am putting in
as GB-139, they will see the first of the documents which connect this
defendant with the earlier Quisling activities.
The first one, Document 957-PS, is a letter from Defendant Rosenberg to
this defendant and it begins:
"Dear Party Comrade Von Ribbentrop:
"Party Comrade Scheidt has returned and has made a detailed
report to Geheimrat Von Grundherr, who will address you on this
subject. We agreed the other day that 200,000 to 300,000