Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40

All aspects including lead-in to hostilities and results.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40

Postby Mortimer » 6 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:25 am)

The German Foreign Office issued a White Paper called Allied Intrigue in the Low Countries. It demonstrates that contrary to the claim that they were "neutral" Holland and Belgium were secretly working with Britain and France. The Dutch allowed the RAF to fly over their territory unhindered to bomb targets in Germany. The Dutch military had talks with their British counterparts. The Belgian and French military were also working in unison - https://archive.org/details/AlliedIntri ... xt/page/n1

Loe De Jong has written a book on this subject. Perhaps any readers of Dutch could translate some of the more relevant parts of the book - https://archive.org/details/LoeDeJongHe ... al/page/n1
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3299
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40

Postby Hektor » 6 months 2 weeks ago (Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:07 pm)

Mortimer wrote:The German Foreign Office issued a White Paper called Allied Intrigue in the Low Countries. It demonstrates that contrary to the claim that they were "neutral" Holland and Belgium were secretly working with Britain and France. The Dutch allowed the RAF to fly over their territory unhindered to bomb targets in Germany. The Dutch military had talks with their British counterparts. The Belgian and French military were also working in unison - https://archive.org/details/AlliedIntri ... xt/page/n1
...
L

As for Allied planes flying over Dutch/Belgian territory, that allegation was made by 'defendants' and their counsel in Nuremberg:
DR. EXNER: Nor does the Prosecution maintain this point of view, otherwise they would not have charged the defendant with certain deeds as being crimes against the laws of war and the rights of neutrals. The entire charge under Count Three would not be understandable. And apart from that, Professor Jahrreiss has dealt with this question on Pages 32 to 35 of his final argument.

Jodl heard for the first time in November 1939-and this from Hitler himself-about the fears of the Navy that Britain was intending to land in Norway. He then received information which left no doubt that these fears were basically right. Furthermore, he had regular reports according to which the Norwegian coastal waters were coming more and more into the English sphere of domination, so that Norway was no longer actually neutral.

Jodl was firmly convinced-and still is today-that the German troops prevented the British landing at the last minute. No matter how Hitler's decision may be judged legally, Jodl did not influence it; he considered the decision justified and was bound to consider it as such. So, even if Hitler's decision were to be regarded as a breach of neutrality, Jodl did not give criminal help by his work on the General Staff.

Like every military expert, Jodl knew that if Germany had to fight out the war in the West, there was no other course but a military offensive. In view of the inadequacy of German equipment at the time and the strength of the Maginot Line, there was, however, from a military point of view, no other possibility for an offensive than through Belgium. Thus Hitler was, for purely military reasons, faced by the necessity of operating through Belgium. But Jodl also fully knew, as did every German who had lived through August 1914, how difficult such a political decision was as long as Belgium was neutral, that is, willing and able to keep out of the war.

The reports which Jodl received, and of the accuracy of which no justified doubts could be entertained, showed that the Belgian Government was already co-operating, in violation of her neutrality, with the general staffs of Germany's enemies. This, however, can be waived here in the defense of Jodl. It suffices to know-and this is indisputable-that part of Belgium's territory, that is, the air over it, was being continually used by Germany's Western enemies for their military purposes.

And this applies perhaps even more strongly to the Netherlands. Since the very first days of the war, British planes flew over Dutch and Belgian territory as and when they pleased. Only in some of the numerous cases did the Reich Government protest, and these were 127 cases.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Exner, will you refer the Tribunal to the evidence which you have for that statement?

DR. EXNER: I beg your pardon?

THE PRESIDENT: Will you refer me to the evidence that you have for that statement?

DR. EXNER: What statement, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT: That protests were made in 127 cases.

DR. EXNER: I am referring to the statements made by the witness Von Ribbentrop. He said that 127 protests were made.

THE PRESIDENT: Go on.

DR. EXNER: The Prosecution does not put the legal question correctly. Before air warfare gained its present importance, conditions were such that a state wishing to remain neutral could prevent its territory from being continually used at will by one of the belligerents, or else its neutrality was clearly terminated. After air warfare became possible, a state might relinquish or be forced to relinquish to one of the belligerents the air over its territory, and yet remain outwardly and diplomatically neutral. But by the very nature of the idea, the defense of its neutrality can be claimed only by a state whose whole territory lies de facto outside the theater of war.

The Netherlands and Belgium, long before 10 May 1940, were no longer de facto neutral, for the air over them was in practice, with or against their will, freely at the disposal of Germany's enemies. What contribution they thus made toward Britain's military potential, that is, toward the strength of one of the belligerents, is known to everybody. One need only think of Germany's most vulnerable point, the Ruhr.

Our adversaries obviously maintained the point of view that insofar as the barrier constituted by Holland and Belgium protected Germany's industrial areas against air attacks, their neutrality was immaterial; but with regard to the protection afforded to France and England, any violation was a crime.

Jodl naturally realized the situation. His opinion on the legal aspect, was, of course, a matter of complete indifference to Hitler.
Here, too, his activity remained the normal activity of a General Staff officer.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Dr. Exner, is it your contention that it is in accordance with international law that if the air over a particular neutral state is made use of by one of the warring nations, the other warring nation can invade that neutral state without giving any warning to the neutral state?

DR. EXNER: In this respect I should like to maintain that this continual use of the air space over a neutral state-that is, for purposes of attack, for these planes flew over such territory in order to attack Germany-was a breach of neutrality. This breach of neutrality justified Germany's no longer regarding Belgium as a neutral country. Therefore, from the standpoint of the Kellogg Pact, or any previous assurance given with respect to neutrality, no charge can be made against Germany in this regard. Whether one can reproach Germany for the fact that she did not declare war in advance is something I leave open to discussion.

Incidentally, it may be presumed that the flights made by the British planes were not announced in advance either.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/07-19-46.asp

Mortimer
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 403
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:27 am

Re: Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40

Postby Mortimer » 6 months 1 week ago (Sun Dec 16, 2018 1:22 am)

In regards to Holland its not as if the Dutch and English always saw eye to eye because if you look at their history they have been to war with each other many times - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars
Britain also treated the Dutch descended Boers badly even refusing to allow food relief to women and children in concentration camps - https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2017/11/ ... -boer-war/
As for Belgium it appears that they were not a genuine neutral in WW1 either - viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9846
There are 2 sides to every story - always listen or read both points of view and make up your own mind. Don't let others do your thinking for you.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 4 weeks ago (Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:46 pm)

More testimony in addition to Hektor's above


Goering testimony:
Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 9
EIGHTY-SECOND DAY
Friday, 15 March 1946
Morning Session

DR. STAHMER: What reasons were decisive for the invasion of Holland and Belgium?

Goering: This question had first been investigated from the purely military and strategic point of view. To begin with it had been examined whether the neutrality of the two States would be guaranteed absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: There is some difficulty with the equipment. The Tribunal will adjourn.

[A recess was taken.]

DR. STAHMER: Would you please continue.

Goering: I repeat. At first, we had to determine whether the neutrality of Holland and Belgium would, under all circumstances, be assured in case of a conflict and a war in the West. In the beginning it seemed as if it would. Then information came that negotiations had taken place not only between Belgium and France but also between Holland and England. There was an incident at Venlo, where a Dutch officer of the general staff had been caught on German territory, and I believe another one was shot by the frontier post during this occurrence, which made it clear that this neutrality could not be maintained under certain conditions and under increased pressure from the enemy side.

Now if neutrality was not assured under all circumstances, a tremendous danger would exist in battle, in that the right flank was menaced and exposed. The purely military authorities, who were concerned only with the strategic point of view, when being asked for their opinion had to give it from a purely military angle; that is, to point out that by occupying both countries, the purely military and strategic situation would of course be different from what it would be if this were not done, and such an occupation were undertaken by the enemy.

An additional element which gave rise to doubt as to the absolute neutrality of these countries was the fact that nearly all flights from Great Britain into Germany, which took place at that time, went over Dutch or Belgian territory. Reliable information reached us that the Belgian Army, which at the beginning of the war had been reinforced on its southwestern frontier, was being regrouped and drawn up along the German border with all its full fighting force.

Further information indicated that an interchange of view between the French and Belgian General Staffs had taken place, and that, under pressure from the French General Staff, Belgium had promised to intensify the work on the fortification line of the Maas against Germany.

Other information indicated that the chief of the French General Staff, Gamelin, as well as Admiral Darlan and the chief of the Air Force, Vuillemin, insisted on the occupation of Belgium under all circumstances, for the security of France, and that considerable negotiations were taking place on this subject between the French and the British governments. The information at the time was highly reliable. How correct and absolutely clear it was became evident later when, after marching into France, we found the secret documents of the French General Staff, and also minutes of conferences which had taken place between the French and British Governments in the so-called Supreme Military Council.

It was the opinion of the Fuehrer that the incapability of these countries to maintain their neutrality in the face of increased French and British pressure would in consequence expose to extreme danger the Ruhr area, which was particularly vital to us. How justified this opinion was can also be seen from reports in which the British chief of government suggested, and had also fully explained by the experts in the Military Council, how best the Ruhr Valley could be attacked by low-flying British aircraft, which would approach over Belgium and then, at the last moment, in a short flight from Belgium could attack the Ruhr Valley and destroy the most important industries there.

If that was not carried out at first, it was due to the concern of the French Premier, for he, on his part, was worried about French industry and wanted to leave it to the other side to make the first attacks against industrial areas. England insisted, however, that she would be able to carry out this attack on the Ruhr Valley via Belgium at any time.

If one takes into consideration how short the flying distance is from the Belgian border to the most important industries of the Ruhr Valley, only a few minutes, one can then fully realize the danger which would arise if the neutrality of Belgium was not respected by our enemies. On the other hand, if it were respected, an attack by the British Air Force on the Ruhr Valley would have necessitated a relatively long flight over the Helgoldnder Bucht from the north, and at that time it would easily have been possible for us to avoid and to repel such an attack. If, however, they came via Belgium, it would have been almost impossible.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-15-46.asp or https://archive.is/gSYS


Joachim von Ribbentrop testimony:
GEN. RUDENKO: Together with Denmark. All right, it was a simultaneous action. Do you consider the attack on Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg as an act of aggression on the part of Germany?

VON RIBBENTROP: That is the same question. I must again say "no," but I would like to add an explanation.

GEN.RUDENKO: Just a moment. I would like you to give shorter replies because you explain the basic questions far too extensively. You deny that this was an act of aggression on the part of Germany?

VON RIBBENTROP: The Russian Prosecutor will understand that we are dealing with very important questions, which are not easily explained in a sentence, especially since we did not have the opportunity to explain the matter in detail. I shall be quite brief.

GEN. RUDENKO: I quite appreciate that you have already been answering questions of this nature for 3 days running.

VON RIBBENTROP: I shall now be very brief. After the Polish campaign military considerations proved to be the decisive factors. The Fuehrer did not wish the war to spread. As for Holland, Belgium, and France, it was France who declared war on Germany and not we who declared war on France. We therefore had to prepare for an attack from this direction as well. The Fuehrer told me at the time that such an attack on the Ruhr area was to be expected, and documents discovered at a later date have proved to the world at large beyond a shadow of doubt that this information was perfectly authentic. The Fuehrer therefore decided to adopt preventive measures in this case as well and not to wait for an attack on the heart of Germany, but to attack first. And so the timetable of the German General Staff was put into practice.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-02-46.asp or https://archive.is/HVAzG
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 715
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Dutch/Belgian "Neutrality" In 1939-40

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 4 weeks ago (Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:38 pm)

Just found this amazing and truthful account of German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop that has long since disappeared down the Orwellian memory hole, but the Times did publish his statement.

1940: NY TIMES REVEALS WHY GERMANY INVADED BELGIUM & THE NETHERLANDS

Image


THE SETTING

Eight months have passed since the Allied powers of Britain & France had declared war against Germany for its justified invasion of Poland. The Allies have ignored Hitler's numerous pleas for peace while amassing their armies in Northern France, close to France's border with Belgium. Other than low-scale British and German maneuvers in Norway and Denmark, the great bloodbath known as World War II has not yet begun and can still be avoided.

The tiny states of Belgium and The Netherlands (both members of the Globalist League of Nations) claim to be "neutral". In reality, under the pressure and influence of mighty England & France (also members of the League of Nations) the two mini-states have been assisting the Allies in their preparation for an attack upon Germany (which had quit the League of Nations in 1933). On May 10, 1940, Hitler orders the invasion of the Low Countries.

Image
Britain, France, the Netherlands and Belgium were all members of the Globalist League of Nations.

The hysterical headlines of the West's major newspapers rush to condemn Germany's aggression, and today's history books portray the event as ultimate evidence that Hitler had been lying all along about not wanting to fight a war with the Western powers. Lost in the history books is the fact that Germany believed that it had no choice but to invade because Belgium and Holland were plotting with the Allies, while claiming to be neutral.

Even amidst its anti-German hysteria, The New York Times, in an effort to appear "objective", did indeed publish "Germany's side of the story", in the form of statements issued by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. It is an account that you will neither find in contemporary history books, nor hear on a TV crockumentary.

Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to reject Germany's claim as being a false propaganda pretext for war, a la 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', the question remains: why do the 'court-historians' continue to conceal such serious allegations from us? Why are we not given all of the data so that we can make up our own minds? What are they so afraid of? The truth?

In the belief that "there are two sides to every story", we are posting abridged reproductions of the May 10 and May 11 Times articles containing the von Ribbentrop allegations. A few bits of highlighted analysis are also included. The full originals can be viewed by copy-paste-enlarging the article images.

********

As you can see, press accounts from May 10, 1940 were heavily slanted against the "Nazis":

Image

But a de-emphasized article from that same issue did present a different version of events; an 'inconvenient' version that has long since 'disappeared' from history.

May 10, 1940
ImageImage

Von Ribbentrop Charges Allies Plotted With the Lowlands
By George Axelsson
Wireless to the New York Times
BERLIN, Friday, May 10 - Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop at 9 o'clock this morning announced that Reich forces had launched military operations Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg to "protect their neutrality".
Earlier it was reported that German troops had occupied Maastricht, the Netherlands, and had "landed" contingents in Brussels, probably meaning parachute troops.
Herr von Ribbentrop said that Germany had received unimpeachable proof that the Allies were engineering an imminent attack through the Lowlands into the German Ruhr district wherefore the Germans felt compelled to take corresponding measures. (In January 1923, France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr, a vital industrial area of German bordering their own countries. The region is full of factories and coalmines. After the German currency had collapsed, the French and Belgians stole the Ruhr's resources in lieu of unpaid World War I reparations.)

He said the time had come for settling the final account with the "Franco-British leaders."

......

"France and Britain dropped their mask." said Herr von Ribbentrop. "The alarm in the Mediterranean was a feint behind which the Allies were preparing an onslaught on German territory which the Reich could not tolerate."

......
The notes handed to The Hague and Brussels simultaneously with a shorter note to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg just prior to their invasion by Germany accused the Lowlands with having been overwhelmingly partial toward the Allies, adding that the attitude of the press was objectionable to the Reich.
A memorandum similar in tone to that handed to Denmark and Norway last month stated:
"In the life-and-death struggle thrust upon the German people, the government does not intend to await an attack by Britain and France inactively allowing the war to be carried through Belgium and Holland onto German soil. The government, therefore, has issued orders to safeguard the neutrality of the two countries with all the military means of the Reich."
......
Continued on Page Four

NAZIS SAY ALLIES PLANNED TO ATTACK

Continued from Page One
......
Holland Also Accused

The second point of the memorandum charges that Holland, in conjunction with certain Belgian circles, lent herself to support attempts by the British Secret Service to bring about a revolution in Germany. An organization allegedly was built up by the Secret Service on Belgian and Netherland soil enjoying the "fullest support" of the Netherland and Belgian authorities including members of the general staff. The "plot" was aimed at the removal of Chancellor Hitler and the setting up of a government in Germany ready to work for the destruction of the unity of the Reich and agreeable to the formation of a powerless federation of individual German States. (Just like today's pathetic attempts at a 'Color Revolution' aimed at weakening Putin in Russia).
......
Copying the argument of the April 9 memorandum to Denmark and Norway, today's documents says the government did not desire and did not bring about the development but that the responsibility rested entirely with France and Britain. (The Germans had been forced to occupy parts of Norway and Denmark in order to thwart the British from setting up anti-German operations in those countries. Google: Operation Wilfred and Plan R4.)


The next day, buried inside of the paper, the Times published von Ribbentrop's full statement.

May 11, 1940
Image
Von Ribbentrop's Statement on the Invasion of the Low Countries
By the United Press
BERLIN, May 10 - Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop called foreign correspondents to offices this morning and read them a memorandum which explained the reasons why Germany invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.lock this morning announced that Reich forces had launched military operations Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Von Ribbentrop Reads Paper
The German government has directed a memorandum to the Royal Belgian and Royal Netherlands governments in which the Reich government asserts that it is in possession of evidence and news which carries incontrovertible proof that an Anglo-French attack on Germany is immediately imminent and that this attack will take place against the Ruhr over Belgium and the Netherlands.

Images below added - French and Belgian troops invaded the industrial Ruhr in a 1923 shakedown operation. A new invasion of the Ruhr would be the most logical place to deliver a painful blow to German industry.

ImageImage


Therefore, the command has been given German troops to insure the neutrality of these countries with all the Reich's military means of power.
.......
The Reich government sets forth therein that it is reliably informed that England and France, in pursuit of their policy of extension of the war, decided in the near future to attack over Belgium and Holland. (Remember, it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany)

The German government has long been aware of the major British-French war policy. It consists of extension of the war to other lands and the misuse of their people as auxiliary mercenary troops of England and France.
The last attempt in this direction was the attempt to occupy Scandinavia with Norway's assistance in order here to create a new front against Germany. Only though Germany's intervention at the last moment was this intention nullified. Germany has produced documentary evidence, therefore, before the world public.

......

As the Reich government already has long known the true aim of England and France, prepared carefully for an impending attack against Germany in the West over Belgian and Netherlands territory to the Ruhr territory. Germany has recognized and respected the integrity of Belgium and the Netherlands and naturally has provided that these two countries shall preserve the strict neutrality in case of war between Germany and England.
Belgium and the Netherlands have not fulfilled this condition They have, indeed, sought so far to preserve the outward appearance of neutrality, but in reality both countries have completely and one-sidedly favored Germany's enemy and have made clear their intentions.
......
... the measures of the Royal Belgian and Royal Netherlands Governments in the military sphere speak even clearer language and they give an irrefutable proof of the true intention of the Belgian and Netherlands policy.
......
The Netherlands coastal territory constituted an equally open and unsecured gate for British aircraft. The Reich government in repeated communications had drawn the Royal Netherlands Government's attention to a violation of Netherlands' neutrality by English planes. Since the outbreak of the war British fliers practically daily have been coming from the Netherlands and have appeared over German terrotory.
There were 127 cases of such flying over Holland by England which have been confirmed definitively and in all details, and the Rotal Netherlands Government has been notified of them. In reality, however, their number is much greater, amounting to many times, than cases in which the Netherlands has been notified. (Neither the Netherlands nor the 'court-historians' have ever denied that these pre-bombing surveillance flights were allowed to take place over "neutral" air-space.)
......
Sixthly, still crasser proof of the true Belgian and Netherlands attitude, however, is the deployment of mobilized Belgian and Netherlands troops, directed exclusively against Germany. While at the beginning of September, 1939, Belgium and the Netherlands divided their troops on their frontiers comparatively evenly - but paralleled to to intensified cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands General Staffs and England and France - sometime later on the western frontiers these countries were completely denuded of troops and the entire Belgian and Netherlands troops were concentrated on the eastern frontiers of both countries confronting Germany.
......
Seventhly, this massing of Belgian and Netherlands troops on the German frontier occurred at a time when Germany had concentrated no troops at all on its frontiers facing Belgium and the Netherlands and while England and France on the contrary had gathered strong motorized offensive armies on the Belgian-French frontier.
The Netherlands undertook their measures at a time when they were expressing their neutrality and while England and France were massing their troops.
......
Eighthly, documents in the possession of the German Government prove that the preparations made by Britain and France on Belgian and Netherlands territory for the attack on Germany had already reached an advanced stage. Thus, some considerable time ago all obstacles on the Franco-Belgian frontier which might have impeded the advance of the Anglo-French forces were secretly removed.

Designs on Ruhr Valley Alleged

Airdromes in Belgium and Holland were inspected by British and French officers and improvements duly carried out. Means of transport were stationed in readiness on the frontier by Belgium and recently advanced staff and troop units of the British and French armies arrived in various places in Belgium and Holland.
These facts as well as additional reports which have become more frequent in the last few days, are undeniable proof that the Anglo-French attack on Germany is imminent and that this attack on the Ruhr (valley) will take place through Belgium and Holland.
......
Calls Policy Deceptive

If, despite this, Belgium and the Netherlands still persist in making a pretense of policy of independence and neutrality, this cannot, in the light of these indubitable facts, be regarded as anything but an attempt at deception as to the real intention of Belgian and Netherlands policy.
In view of this state of affairs, the German government can no longer doubt that Belgium and the Netherlands have determined not only to tolerate the impending Anglo-French stroke, but to support it in every direction, and that the agreements reached between the general staffs of the two countries and those of Britain and France can only serve this purpose.
....
In the struggle for life and death thrust upon the German people by Britain and France the German Government does not intend to await an attack by France and allow the war to be carried through Belgium and Holland into German soil. (Would America allow enemy armies from Asia to amass near the Mexican border?)
....
German soldiers are not entering Holland and Belgium as enemies. (Indeed, many Dutch & Belgian men would later volunteer to fight alongside the Germans in the Waffen SS - photos below added)

ImageImage

The German Government further declares that Germany does not intend by these measures to attack the integrity of the Kingdom of Belgium and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands or their possessions, or their property in Europe, or in their colonies, either now or in the future. (German troops behaved impeccably during their 4-year stay in the Low Countries, even saving their artworks from Allied bombardment (so-called 'Nazi looted art"). Ironically, it was the Globalists who would later strip Belgium and Holland of their colonial possessions.) The Belgian and Netherlands Governments today still have it in their power to safeguard the welfare of their peoples at the last moment by ensuring that no resistance will be offered to the German troops.


Later that same year, von Ribbentrop's Foreign Office published a 50-page English version paper detailing its allegations.

Image

Allied intrigue in the Low Countries; further documents concerning the Anglo-French policy of extending the war.

Full text of White book no. 5, published by the German Foreign Office.

Corporate Author: Germany / Language: English / Published: New York, German Library of Information, 1940

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000920665


THE MURDER OF VON RIBBENTROP

Soon after the rigged Nuremberg trials had ended, on October 16, 1946, Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged. When he was escorted up the steps of the gallows and asked if he had any final words, he said: "God protect Germany. God have mercy on my soul. My final wish is that Germany should recover her unity and that, for the sake of peace, there should be understanding between East and West. I wish peace to the world."

Nuremberg Prison Commandant Burton C. Andrus later recalled that, immediately before the hood was placed over his head, Ribbentrop turned to the prison's Lutheran chaplain and whispered, "I'll see you again." Members of the US Army cremated Ribbentrop’s remains and scattered them in an unmarked location.
From: http://www.tomatobubble.com/ribbentrop.html or https://archive.is/oXA4Y


The NYT article is here (limited preview):
Ribbentrop Charges Allies Plotted With the Lowlands; Ribbentrop Reads Statement
https://www.nytimes.com/1940/05/10/arch ... ntrop.html or https://archive.is/xDmUu



Winnipeg Free Press seems to have printed the full article:
"Ribbentrop Charges Allies Plotted War"
ImageImage

From: https://newspaperarchive.com/winnipeg-f ... -1940-p-1/
Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - April 27, 1940, Winnipeg, Manitoba
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer


Return to “WWII Europe / Atlantic Theater Revisionist Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: HMSendeavour and 0 guests