The 16. Mai Agreement
NORWEGIAN WW2 HISTORY
Volume1
1999
Dear Friends.
I wish to expand the readership of this historical newsletter and have it read
as widely as possible, so that it can be effective in propagating the
revisionist historical message, please pass on our details to as many like
minded souls as possible. Best is it if you allow me to transmit my News
Letters to your friends. Ask them it they want the News Letters direct from
the source, if so, send me their email-addresses and I will include them on
the overgrowing mailing list. If not, keep on sending your friends the News
Letters.
This week I will continue to focus the on agreements signed by the Norwegian
Government of Nygaardsvold in England during WWII. Nygaardsvold was the leader
of the government of Norway that was elected in 1936, the last pre-war
election in Norway before WWII.
The agreement I show to you this week we will look into the
agreements signed on May 16, 1944. On this date Norway signed three identical
agreements with USA, UK and the Soviet Union. These agreements would cover the
eventual invasion of Norway by the three allied powers. I will concentrate
round the agreement signed between Norway and USA, but will also show you the
text of the agreement between Norway and England.
This news letter us a long one, it needs to be. These agreements had a
devastating impact on the postwar Norway, and on some 100000 thousand
Norwegian adults and some 200000 children. The 100000, are the number of
Norwegians that were investigated for cooperating with the Germans during
WWII. The harassment of these patriotic Norwegians in postwar Norway will be
dealt with in a separate HNL.
The agreement
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN, USA AND SOVIET UNION REGARDING CIVIL AFFAIRS
ADMINISTRATION AND JURISDICTION IN NORWAY DURING THE LIBERATION OF NORWAY,
dated May 16, 1944
Foreign Office,
London, 16th May, 1944.
Your Excellency,
1.The discussions (which have taken l) place between representatives of the
United Kingdom and of Norway concerning the arrangements to be made for civil
administration and jurisdiction in Norwegian territory liberated by an Allied
Expeditionary Force under an Allied Commander-in-Chief have led to agreement
upon the broad conclusions set out in the memorandum of agreement annexed
hereto.
2. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland have considered and approved this memorandum.
3. I shall be grateful if your Excellency will inform me whether the Norwegian
Government likewise approve of the annexed memorandum of agreement, and wether
they agree that the present note and your Excellency's reply shall be regarded
as constituting an agreement between our two Governments in this matter.
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, Sir, your most
obedient Servant,
Anthony Eden
His Excellency
M. Trygve Lie, &c., &c., &
Annex.
Memorandum of agreement regarding civil administration and jurisdiction in
Norwegian territory liberated by an allied expeditionary force.
The agreed arrangements set out below are intended to be essentially temporary
and practical and are designed to facilitate as far as possible the task of
the Commander-in-Chief and to further our common purpose, namely, the speedy
expulsion of the Germans from Norway and the final victory of the Allies over
Germany.
1. In areas affected by military operations it is necessary to con-template a
first or military phase during which the Commander-in-Chief of the
Expeditionary Force on land must, to the full extent necessitated by the
military situation, exercise supreme responsibility and authority.
2. As soon as, and to such extent as, in the opinion of the
Commander-in-Chief, the military situation permits, the Norwegian Government
will be notified in order that they may resume the exercise of responsibility
for the civil administration, subject to such special arrangements as may be
required in areas of vital importance to the Allied Forces, such as ports,
lines of communication and airfields, and without prejudice to the enjoyment
by the Allied Forces of such other facilities as may be necessary for the
prosecution of the war to its final conclusion.
3.(a) During the first phase the Commander-in-Chief will make the fullest
possible use of the advice and assistance which will be tendered to him
through Norwegian liaison officers attached to his staff for civil affairs and
included in the personnel of a Norwegian military mission to be appointed by
the Norwegian Government. He will also make the fullest possible use of loyal
Norwegian local authorities.
(b) The Norwegian liaison officers referred to in sub-paragraph (a) above
will, so far as possible, be employed as intermediaries between the Allied
military authorities and the Norwegian local authorities.
4. During the first phase the Norwegian Government will assist the
Commander-in-Chief by reorganizing or re-establishing the Norwegian
administrative and judicial services through whose collaboration the
Commander-in-Chief can discharge his supreme responsibility. For this purpose
the Norwegian Government will act through its representatives on the spot,
who, for practical reasons, will be included in the Norwegian military mission
referred to In sub-paragraph 3 (a) above.
5. The appointment of the Norwegian administrative and judicial services will
be effected by the competent Norwegian authorities in accordance with
Norwegian law. If during the first phase (see paragraph 1 above) conditions
should necessitate appointments in the Norwegian administrative or judicial
services, the competent representative of the Norwegian Government will, upon
the request of the Commander-in-Chief and after consultation with him, then
appoint the requisite officials.
6. Members of the Norwegian armed forces serving in Norwegian units with the
Allied Expeditionary Force in Norwegian territory shall come under the
exclusive jurisdiction of Norwegian courts. Other Norwegians, who, at the time
of entering Norway as members of the Allied Expeditionary Force, are serving
in conditions which render them subject to Allied naval, military or air force
law, will not be regarded as members of the Norwegian armed forces for this
purpose.
7. In the exercise of jurisdiction over civilians, the Norwegian Government
will make the necessary arrangements for ensuring the speedy trial in the
vicinity by Norwegian courts of such civilians as are alleged to have
committed offences against the persons, property or security of the Allied
Forces, without prejudice, however, to the power of the Commander-hi-Chief, if
military necessity requires, to bring to trial before a military court any
person alleged to have committed an offence of this nature.
8. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 15, Allied service courts
and authorities will have exclusive jurisdiction over all members of the
Allied Forces respectively and over all persons of non-Norwegian nationality
not belonging to such Forces who are employed by or who accompany those Forces
and are subject to Allied naval, military or air force law. The question of
jurisdiction over such merchant seamen as are not subject to Allied service
law will require special consideration and should form the subject of a
separate agreement.
9. Persons thus subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Allied service courts
and authorities may, however, be arrested by the Norwegian police for offences
against Norwegian law, and detained until they can be handed over for disposal
to the appropriate Allied service authority. A certificate signed by an Allied
officer of field rank or its equivalent, that the person to whom it refers
belongs to one of the classes mentioned in paragraph 8, shall be conclusive.
The procedure for handling over such persons is a matter for local
arrangement.
10. The Allied Commander-in-Chief and the Norwegian authorities will take the
necessary steps to provide machinery for such mutual assistance as may be
required in making investigations, collecting evidence, and securing the
attendance of witnesses in relation to cases triable under Allied or Norwegian
jurisdiction.
11. There shall be established by the respective Allies claims commissions to
examine and dispose of claims for compensation for damage or injury preferred
by Norwegian civilians against the Allied Forces, exclusive of claims for
damage or injury resulting from enemy action or operations against the enemy.
12. Members of the Allied Forces and organizations and persons employed by or
accompanying those forces, and all property belonging to them or to the Allied
Governments, shall be exempt from all Norwegian taxation (including customs)
except as may be subsequently agreed between the Allied and Norwegian
Governments. The Allied authorities will take the necessary steps to ensure
that such property is not sold to the public in Norway except in agreement
with the Norwegian Government.
13. The Commander-in-Chief shall have power to requisition billets and
supplies and make use of lands, buildings, transportation and other services
for the military needs of the forces under his command. Requisitions will be
effected where possible through Norwegian authorities and in accordance with
Norwegian law. For this purpose the fullest use will be made of Norwegian
liaison officers attached to the staff of the Commander-in-Chief.
14. The immunity from Norwegian jurisdiction and taxation resulting from
paragraphs 8 and 12 will extend to such selected civilian officials and
employees of the Allied Governments present in Norway on duty in furtherance
of the purposes of the Allied Expeditionary Force as may from time to time be
notified by the Commander-in-Chief to the competent Norwegian authority.
15. Should circumstances in future be such as to require provision to be made
for the exercise of jurisdiction in civil matters over non-Norwegian members
of the Allied Forces present in Norway, the Allied Governments concerned and
the Norwegian Government will consult together as to the measures to be
adopted.
16. Other questions arising as a result of the liberation of Norwegian
territory by an Allied Expeditionary Force (in particular questions relating
to finance and currency and the attribution of the cost of maintaining the
civil administration during the first or military phase) which are not dealt
with in this agreement shall be regarded as remaining open and shall form the
subject of further negotiation as circumstances may require.
Royal Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
London, 16th May, 1944.
Your Excellency,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of this day's date
regarding arrangements for civil administration and jurisdiction in Norwegian
territory liberated by an Allied Expeditionary
Force under an Allied Commander-in-Chief, and in reply to inform your
Excellency that the Norwegian Government have likewise considered and approved
the memorandum of agreement annexed hereto.
2. I have the honour to inform you that the Norwegian Government agree that
your Excellency's note and the present reply shall be regarded as constituting
an agreement between our two Governments in this matter.
3. My Government attach importance to an official Norwegian translation of the
agreement being prepared for the use of their military and civil authorities,
and desire this translation to be agreed between our two Governments. I shall
accordingly have the honour to submit such a translation to your Department in
due course.
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, Sir, your most
obedient Servant,
Trygve Lie.
Right Hon.
Anthony Eden, M.C., M.P., &c., &c., &c.
Memorandum of agreement between Norway and the United States of America
respecting the arrangements for civil administration and jurisdiction in
Norwegian territory liberated by an allied expeditionary force
The discussions which have taken place between the representatives of Norway
and the United States of America concerning the arrangements to made for civil
administration and jurisdiction in Norwegian territory liberated by an Allied
Expeditionary Force under an Allied Commander in Chief have led to agreement
upon the following broad conclusions.
(This part of the text was not given, because the part is equal for all
agreements).
In witness whereof, this instrument has been executed in duplicate as of this
16th day of May, 1944, on behalf of the parties hereto under the respective
authorizations hereinafter set forth.
I hereby execute this instrument in behalf of Norway in accordance with the
following authorization:
We Haakon, King of Norway, in accordance with Royal Decree of 4 March, 1944,
hereby authorize and empower our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Monsieur Trygve
Lie, to sign an agreement between Norway and the United States of America
concerning civil administration and jurisdiction in Norwegian territory
liberated by an allied expeditionary force.
London, 3 March, 1944.
(s) Haakon Rex
L. S.
(s) Trygve Lie
Trygve Lie Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway.
Pursuant to instructions from the Joint Chiefs of Staff I hereby execute this
instrument in behalf of the United States of America.
(5) Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower General, United States Army.
COMMENTS
The above agreements are only a part of the truth regarding the agreements
regarding the ‘liberation' of Norway after WWII. But the whole truth remains
concealed by the official Norwegian authorities.
After WWII the politicians that had been in England came home to prosecute
political opponents that had lived in the country during the German
occupation. Before they, the homecoming politicians could start the
prosecution, this they had known the whole time they spend abroad, they needed
laws that made it possible to convict their political opponents. The laws they
brought with them came to be known in Norway as Landssviklovene which equates
to the British equivalent of High Treason.
THE NORWEGIAN CIVIL AFFAIRS HANDBOOK
(The above agreements are not the complete agreements that were signed on
May 16, 1944 even if the official authorities say they are. To be able to read
the complete text one has to look in a book the US troops had and used during
their occupation of Norway after May 8, 1945, a occupation that lasted for
almost 18 months. The correct length of the Allies' occupation of Norway is
impossible to establish. The technical reason being, is that the officials do
not look on the Allied stay as an occupation. Had they officially admitted it
was an occupation they would have to admit that their own stay in England
during WWII was not to participate in the war against Germany, something that
will damage the reputation of the exile-politicians. It would also be bad for
the verdicts that were past on the Members of Nasjonal Samling, Quisling
party. My comments)
These issues and questions will be looked at in more depth in the future.
I will mention those parts of the hidden agreement that concerns the laws for
convictions of Norwegian citizens the rest only concerns information regarding
how to handle the civil affairs in Norway.
THE AGREEMENT THE OFFICIAL NORWEGIAN GOVERNMENT KEPT SECRET FROM THEIR
COUNTRYMEN AND -WOMEN.
The Norwegian authorities will be responsible for taking such measures as they
deem proper in respect of those matters usually classified as civil
administration matters. CAOs, Civil Administration Officers, charged with
civil administration duties will work in close conjunction with CIC,
Commander-in-Chief, and other branches, to assist, or arrange with appropriate
specialist COAs to assist, the Norwegian authorities when and as requested by
them in measures instituted by those authorities in respect of the following
matters:
a) Removal and Replacement of Officials.- The removal from office and if
necessary, the arrest of persons who wilfully collaborated with the enemy or
who deliberately acted in a manner hostile to the Allied cause.
b) Restoration and Preservation of Civil Rights.
(i) The dissolution of all Nazi inspired organizations and all laws which
discriminate on basis of race, colour, creed, or political opinion which have
been imposed upon the Norwegians by the Germans.
(ii) The non-interference with civil rights of individuals and the permitting
of religious worship and such freedom of speech and assembly, consistent with
military necessity.
c) Dissolution and Control of Pro-Enemy Factions
(i) The dissolution of political parties and organizations which have
collaborated with the enemy
(ii) The arrest and internment of the leaders of the parties and organizations
referred to in sub-paras. (b) (i) and (c) (i) above and of any other persons
whose detention is considered necessary in the interest of the Allied cause
and for the maintenance of order. All such persons who are Norwegian citizens
will be turned over as soon as possible to the competent Norwegian
authorities.
(d) Control of Political Activity.
(i) Subject to the over-riding interests of military operations the permitting
of orderly political and industrial activity by persons and organizations who
had not willfully collaborated with the enemy.
(ii) Political activities not covered by the foregoing paragraph which appear
to be or may become subversive or which may affect the security of the Norway
Force.
(iii) The immediate release of persons imprisoned or detained in Norway by the
enemy for political reasons.
3.The duties in respect of the foregoing matters will be allocated to the Ops
Staff of Force HQ CA and to the executive branch of the respective CA staffs,
but decisions, except on routine matters, shall invariably be made by the CCAO
or DCCAO."
There can be no doubt this is also a part of the agreement the exiled
Norwegian government illegally entered into with UK, USA and the Soviet Union
on May 16, 1944. Fundamentally this agreement is in conflict with and a direct
contradiction of the Norwegian Constitution. The allies did not need to coerce
the exiled government into these agreements, the already illegal exiled
Government (which had expired it's electoral mandate to govern) they could
have refused to sign them on the following basis
The exiled government had not participated in WWII, they had SURRENDERED to
Germany on June 10, 1940 they were thus reduced to being mere puppets of the
international regime of the allies.
The agreement is in violence of all Norwegian laws and § 26 of The
Constitution:
Quote:
The King have the right to summon troops, start war for the defence of the
country and to conclude peace, enter and annul prohibition, send and receive
ambassadors
Treaties regarding cases of special importance and in instance of treaties
which implementation according to The Constitution necessitate en new law or a
resolution by the Storting vil first be binding after the Storting have given
her consent.
Unquote
The agreement was a violation of §26 and was on top of that entered into by a
government that had no power in a elected Storting.
The agreement was marked "Restricted" and as such not available for the public
and the Norwegian lawyers during the law suits in the lawsuits that followed
the German capitulation. These lawsuits are known in Norway as
"Landssvikssakene" (lawsuits for traitors).
In this context the word Landssvikanordning needs an explanation,
Landssviksanordning means decrees related to treason. These decrees introduced
new rules in Norwegian courts of justice. The decree removed the independent
jury from the courtroom and replaced them with a legal jury. The decree also
introduced death penelty. Norway did not have death penelty in peace times
only during wartime. The introduction of the death penalty (which had also
been abolished in Germany in 1934, but reintroduced in 1941 due to the war),
was a simple indication that Talmudic Justice also known as revenge a creed
totally alien to Norway was destined to be imposed on the Norwegian people.
In 1902 Norway removed death penalty from their peace-time codes of law, she
maintain death penalty in the military code of laws, but only for crimes
committed during war time.
After WWII Norway sentenced 30 Norwegians to death penalty. Of these 25 were
executed, in addition Norway executed 12 Germans.
The five Norwegians that received death sentences but not executed, were
reprieve to life imprisonment but left prison after 12 years.
This are the result of the Landsviksanordning:
- death penalty = 30
- sentenced to imprisonment = 17 000
- sentenced to other penalty = 3 450
- accepted fine resulting in imprisonment = 3 120
- accepted fine of other sentence = 25 180
- acquited by final sentence = 1 375
- withdrawal of the charge = 5 500
- dismiss due to lack of proofs = 37 150
Total number of under investigation for treason = 92 805
None of the occupied countries sentenced such a large number of their
inhabitants for treason as Norway. Norway had only 3.100.000 inhabitants in
May 1945. This were the result of the new laws which according to Solem were
less severe then the pre-WWII laws.
The Landssvikanordning was unknown in Norway before May 8, 1945, but was for
alleged crimes committed before that day. Norway have/had laws demanding any
new laws should be known to the public before they could/can be used, this
legality was totally ignored by the Allied imposed government. The decree made
the judge in the se cases a new role, he could operate as a prosecutor!. The
most notorious judge from the postwar trials period , Erik Solem - President
of the Court in the lawsuit against Quisling acted with a pernicious intent
when he prosecuted Quisling, the public prosecutor did hardly have to question
Quisling.
The decree was according to the legend written on December 15, 1944 and should
be equal to a decree written 1941. (I will in a Historical News Letter later
discuss the Landssvikanordning in great detail.)
What the decree said was illegal:
"§ 1. Those who after April 9, 1940 were members or applied for membership or
consented to membership in:
a) Nasjonal Samling or organisations related to them
b) any other organisation which during the war acted i violation of chapter 8
or 9 in the military penal code.
§ 2 Those who after April 8, 1940 have supported such organisations which are
mentioned under §1 above.
§ 3 Those who after April 8, 1940 have carried out or participated in any
occupational activity for the enemy in such a way or under such circumstances
that they must be consider to be improper. As improper conditions should
generality activities and contact with the enemy be regarded."
Study the agreement between Norway and USA and I am sure you would agree with
me, the decree is very like the amendments in the USA/Norway agreement.
Unfortunately for Norway and her self respect neither her historians nor
lawyers or students of law have ever the equality of the decree in relation to
The Constitution and the paragraphs Norway had regarding treachery. Paragraphs
forced on to Norway by a foreign power can under no circumstance become
Norwegian laws. The Constitution's paragraphs 75, 76. 77 and 78 prohibits
that. Laws shall according to § 75 be given by the Storting.
Norway's supreme court did not fulfil their duty towards the Norwegian public
when they failed to renounce the agreements signed by the exile government.
Further more the supreme court should have renounced the Elverumsfullmakt, an
authority the exile-government thought they got at Elverum on April 9, 1940,
this authority according to the exile-government gave them the right to give
new laws over and above the authority the Constitution § 17 had given The
King.
Article 17
The King may issue and repeal ordinances relating to commerce, customs
tariffs, all economic sectors and the police; although these must not conflict
with the Constitution or with the laws passed by the Storting (as hereinafter
prescribed in Articles 77, 78 and 79). They shall remain in force
provisionally until the next Storting.
The authority accepted by I.C.Hambro in the evening meeting at Elverum April
9, 1940 without opening for a debate on the authority because he was afraid
some of the representatives would oppose him. One representative, Mr. Fure,
asked why the government needed an extra paragraph to allow the King to write
laws and/or decrees - they already had § 17.
What ever the situation was, the position the supreme court has in the
Norwegian court system says the laws shall be passed by the Storting and used
by the courts. Landssvikanordningen had not been passed or approved by the
Storting when the courts started to use them. The decrees did not pass the
Storting until 1949. (I will tell you more about this in a later mail.)
Norway capitulated for Germany on June 10, 1940 in Trondheim. In a statement
in one of the Landssvik-cases the supreme court said the following on the
King's and the government's position after the capitulation and they ran away
from the country the enemy
quote
they were still in function, but could not govern
unquote
What kind of a function can a government be in that can not govern? Only a few
Norwegian have reacted on this statement from the supreme court, those of the
member's of National Samling who did got harder sentences then they else would
have gotten, others like myself have suffered by loss of work and ways to
support themselves.
In the very beginning of legal proceedings against the members of Nasjonal
Samling after WWII there were rumours that the decree had been written by the
Hjemmefront, Homefront - Norwegian resistence. Nobody wanted to stand up and
say who wrote the decree. To day we know - the writers were all members of
Hjemmefront were the so called judges in the special courts that were set up
to sentence the members of Nasjonal Samling. Let us look at some of these men
and judges:
Erik Solem: Solem was before WWII member of the supreme court, but
stepped down after WWII and became judge in crown court in Oslo. Solem was one
of the writers of the decree, and as such he should never have been allowed to
work with cases related to the decree. Before the case against Quisling Solem
spoke to the press about Quisling's guilt. Nobody acted on Solems
pre-condemnation of Quisling. If the supreme court had been impartial they
should have thrown Quisling's case back to the crown court for a new hearing,
but instead they just fell in with the crown court and convicted Quisling.
This brought the whole Norwegian legal system into discredit.
Ferdinan Schjeldrup: Member of Hjemmefront and one of the writers of
the decree.
Paal Berg: Member of Hjemmefront. Berg was guided by Schjeldrup in all
legal matters. Further more Berg had discredited himself during the summer of
1940 as he together with other well known Norwegians ( none of whom were
members of Nasjonal Samling), negotiated with Germany for a peace agreement,
starting the negotiations June 17, 1940. According to The Constitution only
The King can negotiate for peace. Berg had even together with some men - even
members of the Storting - signed a telegram that was transmitted to The King
via the Swedish Embassy in Oslo asking the King to step down.
Today 53 years after the end of WWII no one knows why the decree was unknown
to the Norwegian people before May 8, 1945. The Norwegian authorities always
avoid telling the public why the agreement with UK, USA and Soviet Union not
was discussed in Storting and why foreign troops had to occupy Norway after
Germany had capitulated. Norway at this time had troops in UK, troops that
were described as free troops.
When studying the agreement regarding arrest and punishment of Norwegian
citizens one will see that the Americans had set requirements to who should be
arrested.
During WWII nobody expressed that membership in Nasjonal Samling was illegal.
The bishop in Oslo, head of the Norwegian church - Berggrav, said this
when approached by priests regarding membership in Nasjonal Samling.
quote
everybody stands free in the question wether or not to become member in
Nasjonal Samling
unquote
On April 10, 1940 bishop Eivind Berggrav of Oslo went on a spying trip for the Germans looking for Norwegian soldiers northwest of Oslo. The Germans drove the bishop out of Oslo and they picked him up one day later. He could tell the Germans that he had seen no Norwegian military troops in the area he had searched through. This picture of bishop Berggrav was printed in every number of the German monthly booklet published in all of Europe during the month of May 1940. The bishop was NOT imprison for his treason after WWII
Paal Berg when he was head of the supreme court, see above, failed to warn
policemen or anyone else that membership in Nasjonal Samling was illegal. The
same can be said about Erik Solem. Solem was even asked wether or not membership in Nasjonal Samling was illegal. If membership in Nasjonal Samling
according to Norwegian law was illegal then at least the judges should be able
tell when asked.
The best known juridical professor, Jon Skeie, after WWII said this
about the decrees
quote
None of the decrees has legal validity. Of all one can say their content
lays outside what The King's legislative power. Those decrees that tighten up
the rules are illegal because they violate § 97 in The Constitution (No law
must be given give retrospective force
unquote
The decrees were not legal, not even the Supreme Court could by using them
make them legal. Everybody knew this, but still they kept on sentencing their
fellow countrymen to heavy sentences long imprisonment and confiscation of
land and money. Few of the lawyers dared to say anything as they were in risk
of being prosecuted themselves or at least they could lose costumers.
The decree was built on everybody understanding that Norway in spite of the
Capitulation of Trondheim was at war with Germany. One lawyer, Holte from
Trondheim, wrote in a news paper called Dagsposten on August 6, 1940,
Holte was Norway' leading expert on international law, he repeated his
statement after the war:
quote
..... In the relationship to the occupant everyone in Norway must not show
any form of hostel behaviour. If Norwegian abroad chooses to go to war for
Great Britain that is a voluntary. Norway as a state is not bound by that.
Neither the king nor the government are legitimated to let Norway participate
for Britain in this war
unquote
The decree of October 3 1941 does not say that membership in Nasjonal Samling,
NS, was illegal. At the time the Exile-Government did not consider membership
in a pre-war legal political party illegal. On January 22, 1942 a new decree
saw the daylight. This decree was an amendment to the treason paragraph in the
penal code. The comittee that wrote that amendment did not look at membership
in NS as illegal to the existing penal code which was the reason for the last
amendment - to make membership illegal. The decree of January 1942 does not
state a date as of which membership was illegal. This comity was set down by
Hjemmefronten, Home Front - one of the resistance groups in Norway during
WWII. This comittee wanted to legally punish not only NS but anybody
assisting/working the Germans during the war. Judge Solem was the leading man
from Home Front in the comity.
Erik Solam
Solem should never have been a member of the comittee which wrote the new
paragraphs to the penal code - he knew he would be a judge after WWII, but he
felt for the excitement of being both a legislator and a judge - a position
which none can have in a normal country or life. He argued that the new penal
code was less stringent than the old penal code, chapter 8 and 9 in the
Norwegian book og laws. None believed that statement of Mr Solem. To the
defence for the new penal codes Solem said:
quote
We make new penal code for actions which are not covered in chapter 8 of
the penal code. But in order to not upset the citizens regarding this abuse of
the law we say the new law gives a lesser penalty then the old one.
Unquote
What Solem really said was: Membership in NS is not illegal according the
existing law, so in order to punish the members we have to write new laws. Now
we have done so - next step is the court rooms, but first we must brainwash
the Norwegians into believing that what we have done is legal.
Why am I in the position to say that the decrees is based on the requirements
of the agreements from May 16, 1944? Firstly because none of the paragraphs
dealing with political crimes in Norway written before may 16, 1944 says
membership in Nasjonal Samling, NS, is illegal. A second reason is that the
decrees of as shown in the beginning of this article is written on that bases
that USA demanded imprisonment of all NS members before they agreed to
liberate Norway from the German occupation.
The Norwegian Exile-Justice Department (in London) attitude to the decrees of
December 15, 1944 is based on weak juridical grounds which can be read from a
letter from London to Hjemmefronten
quote
.... The writers of the decrees has been in fully aware of the fact (the
decrees clashes with the Constitution § 97 No law must be given retroactive
effect.) By means of a formulation and through a very wide understanding of §
97 they have in a very sensitive subject tried to come up with a result that
should make it possible to judge so many people. And still they mean they do
not clash with §97.
unquote
The Exile-Justice department is saying that they are looking upon the decrees
as in conflict with the Constitution §97. Still they accepts them. The
Department, the political leadership and the Hjemmefront have found the
scapegoat, NS and it's members had been marked as those having to bear the
responsibility for the government and all other parties neglecting of the
politics of the defence before WWII. All the politicians even those who ran
away to England, the cooperators were freed.
Those who wrote the decrees had been jurist respected for the way they before
the war had practised a civilized law and justice. They had learned it is
better that 10 men are freed then one man wrongfully convicted. It is very
unfortunate that no lawyer with general view and good nerves read through the
decrees before it were up into use. Had this happened hundred thousands of
Norwegian would have been spared the tragedy the Landssvikssakene (lawsuits
for traitors) caused the Norwegian society and the nation.
Concluding comments
Despite the many Norwegian growing up with little and bad confidence in the
Norwegian justice system and the exile-government and the Hjemmefront, few to
day know that it was the USA that forced the exile-government and Hjemmefront
to enforce the new and illegal paragraphs unto the Norwegian legal system.
Many think the exile-government willingly grasped the possibility to judge
innocent people and sentence them instead of the real criminals, the
exile-government, that did not defend the country.
The exile-government knew they had deserted their responsibility before the
war, they were prepared for a political settlement regarding their desertion.
They were fighting for their political lives. They found a scapegoat, NS and
it's members - the only political party that warned for the wrong politics of
the politicians in the Storting and the way they handled the defence of the
country.
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Koht, had many thoughts after June 7, 1940
regarding the future for him and the Prime minister Nyggardsvold. Khot know he
could support himself as a historian but how should Nygarrdsvold support
himself - he could not go back to work as a quay worker - he was to old for
that. These were thoughts Koht had before he knew that Britain would let him
and the exile- government get their hands on the Norwegian gold. As the
British got their hands on the Norwegian gold the exile-government would have
no problems whatever became of Norway, the exile-government would be well
looked after.
If they knew they were in the right with their behaviour, why then bother with
their future? No, the fact is they knew they had acted wrongly - that was the
bases of Mr Koht's thoughts. But he and all his colleagues all had a very easy
job lying to the Norwegians as they came home from their exile. By way of
consolation for their time in exile - a time they spend like kings while their
country-men and women had a hardship fighting for their daily meal - hardship
brought upon them by the British blockade and raids along the cost - the
exile-government got to judge and sentence their political enemies after the
war. Wasn't that a fine consolidation for five years wining and dinning?
In addition to giving the members of NS heavy jail sentences they were all
given fines, which should pay for the economical damage Germany had done in
Norway. The politicians did not subtract all the money Germany had invested in
Norway by building up roads, industries and housing and military forts.
Through the fines all members of NS were made politically dead, not within
their own lifetime but also their children were deemed dead. The decrees even
wanted to take land and farms from the members of NS. This was a violation of
the Constitution § 104
quote
Land and goods may in no case be made subject to forfeiture.
Unquote
Many Norwegian old farms were taken away from their families after the war and
given to members of the rolling political parties, labour party and the
communists party.
It all brought a new class of people to power in Norway. The members of NS had
been from the most significant and old families in the country.
The children of the members are even to-day afraid of tell that their parents
were members of NS. Children of members were stoped when asking for education
in the schools. The teachers demanded more from them to get good grades.
I have over years fought the official Norway to admit they treated us,
children of NS members wrongly. The answer I have gotten are: YOUR FATHER
AND MOTHER LOST THE WAR. WE DO NOT NEED TO ANSWER YOU. WE DID NOTHING WRONG.
That is the Norway that wants to be a leading country in human questions and
whom attacks other countries for their treatment of minorities.
Heil og Sæl, dear friends
Julius Streiker