|
|
|
|
THE NORWEGIAN/GERMAN CAPITULATION AGREEMENT Norwegian WW2 History Dear friends and fellow Aryans! In this letter I will tell you what happened after the signing of the capitulation agreement and how the run away Norwegian Government acted when they were offered an army of 5,000 soldiers. I will also tell you of how Colonel Burschenhagen of the Wehrmacht and lieutenant- colonel Roscher Nielsen of the Norwegian Army regarded the agreement after the war. Further, I will tell you the Norwegian negotiator, Roscher Nielsen's view of the discussion prior to signing the agreement. Before we start looking into the above points there is one small thing I wish to emphasise for you: "There are differences in the two agreements, the Narvik agreement and the Trondheim agreement, regarding the word of honour which the officers gave for parole instead of imprisonment. In the Narvik agreement the wording is for the duration of the German occupation of Norway but the Trondheim agreement has the following wording: shall not take up arms against Germany or any of her allies for the duration of the ongoing war". These differences should make it clear to everyone that one of the agreements, the Narvik agreement, is a local capitulation and that the other, the Trondheim agreement, is the capitulation for Norway as a country. But since May 8, 1945 nobody in any official position, none of the historians, nobody ever elected to the Norwegian Parliament, no teacher in any school has admitted that the Trondheim agreement was a total capitulation. The German General von Falkenhorst, who had led the planning and later the attack and capture of Denmark and Norway, was expecting his Norwegian counterpart general Otto Ruge to come for the signing of the agreement. But, as you know, Ruge sent his friend and second in command Roscher Nielsen. In a radio speech after the war Roscher Nielsen told Norwegians how he acted and how he was treated when he arrived at the Hotel Britannia in Trondheim: "I was met by the German negotiators and they permitted me to wash and asked if there was anything I wanted. I told them I wished to speak with my wife. They could arrange for that. A German soldier called my wife in Oslo, but she did not answer him as she understood a German was calling her. After several calls I was allowed to call and she spoke to me. She was such a good Norwegian she didn't want to speak with Germans. I then arranged for her to have some money - since she had not received any from me since early April. Later in Roscher Nielsen's radio speech he said that when the Germans asked to see his written authorities regarding the negotiations he said he had none, "but still the stupid Germans were willing to negotiate." Colonel Burschenhagen recalls the meeting with Roscher Nielsen differently. In a letter to the Norwegian court, he wrote that the negotiations went well but that Roscher Nielsen was anxious regarding the payment of salary to Norwegian officers if they gave their word of honour not to fight any more. When this was cleared with Norwegian lawyers Roscher Nielsen was more than willing to sign the agreement. Regarding the Norwegian King and the Government Colonel Borschenhagen wrote the following in his above letter: "We knew the King and Government had left the country and we expected the negotiator to make a statement regarding the King and the soldiers that had left. As this was not an issue in the negotiations we did not mention it." Roscher Nielsen did not demand exception from the agreement for those Norwegian soldiers that had fled to Sweden with their general in April, 1940 and who had been interned there. Comment: The statement by Roscher Nielsen in his radio speech after the war regarding the Germans letting him negotiate without any credentials as a negotiator must been seen as a statement meant to downgrade the importance of the negotiations and also as a statement to show the Norwegians how stupid the Germans were. Showing credentials before negotiating a capitulation is one of the most vital acts for both parties. Both parties must know that the negotiators can make decisions in the matter at hand. Regarding the King and the few servicemen, mainly airmen who fled with him, the Germans could have made the same exception for them as they had made for the Dutch troops fighting at Zeeland in the Dutch/German capitulation of May 15, 1940. This capitulation agreement is also a total capitulation with the exception of the troops in Zeeland. Such information has been kept hidden from Norwegians ever since the war ended. The Germans could also have made exception for the soldiers interned in Sweden had the Norwegian negotiator demanded that. Back to the story!!! When the results of the negotiations became known to general Carl Erichsen he sent a telegram to the Norwegian Embassy in Stockholm on June 20,1940 saying that he and his 5,000 men could all come to England and fight for the Government. The Government answered the General in the following way: "Regarding the Norwegian soldiers interned in Sweden, this is a question of how long the Swedish Government will allow them to stay. Under the prevailing political circumstances it is no use keeping a force of 5,000 Norwegian soldiers in Sweden. If we ever return to Norway we must bring with us weapons for a new army. If we come back people will come to us. The interned soldiers should return to Norway if the Swedish Government allows them to go." Comment: Does this sound like the answer of a political leadership having decided to keep up the war against Germany? To me it does not, but still they claimed after the war that they were an active part of the fight against Germany and that Norway never capitulated. Back to the interned soldiers. They and their general returned to Norway. The officers had to give their word of honour not to take up arms against Germany or her allies for the duration of the ongoing war. When the result of the agreement from Trondheim became known to the world various governments acted according to the text. The Swedes sent the interned soldiers and their officers back to Norway. The Russian government closed the Norwegian Embassy saying the ambassador could not have an office for Norway since Germany had one, and Germany was now in charge of Norwegian foreign affaires. In spite of this the Norwegian government claimed after the war that they and Norway were at war with Germany. This was also the view of all Norwegian courts and all Norwegian historians. Some lawyers were of an opposite opinion, but they were soon silenced. In the late 50's and early 60's one Norwegian historian began a discussion regarded the Trondheim agreement and the war history of Norway, but even he was silenced. One Norwegian historian, professor Skodvin, has, since the end of the war, defended the official Norwegian view on the capitulation. He has written numerous articles on the subject. In one of them he discusses the wording of the preamble of the Trondheim agreement. His opinion is that for the agreement to be a total capitulation agreement the wording should have been "all Norwegian armed forces in the air, at sea and on land lay down their weapons" as was the wording of the French/German agreement. He does not mention the wording of the agreements between Germany and Holland or Germany and Belgium which had a wording similar to that of Norway. To Mr Skodvins discussion I want to make a statement: "There must be a difference in the wording when a small country with a small army like Norway capitulates and when a large country with a large army capitulates. Further, I believe that the German word "gesamte" is an all inclusive word meaning all with no exception. So when the Trondheim agreement says "Die gesamte norwegische Streitkrefte" then this means all the Norwegian armed forces lay down their weapons. This was a total capitulation on behalf of the Norwegian Government and her army." For more than 45,000 Norwegians and their children the interpretation of the Norwegian courts regarding the Trondheim agreement has had devastating consequences. Because of their parents children have been treated as the children of traitors with all the persecution that entails. Some of the children have gone on in spite of this. They have done so by accepting their fate and playing the game according to the wishes of the winning party. As for those who did not accept the government's interpretation and did not believe their parents to be traitors the government has been and still is persecuting them. In the next letter on this topic I will write on how all Norwegian Governments since WWII have persecuted their opponents. I will further discuss what the consequences would have been had the government accepted the wording of the Trondheim agreement. I will also tell you of a perjury which three members of the exile Government committed in a court after the war and what a legal professor says in their defence. I hope you find this story interesting. If you do want to hear what the Norwegian Government is saying today about the Trondheim agreement please send a letter to the nearest embassy with a copy of the preamble of both the Narvik agreement and the Trondheim agreement and ask them to interpret the two agreements for you. If you get an answer please send it to me and I will post it on the net. Stay united and well, stay true Aryans and help me to reestablish Norway's honour. Heil og sael Julius
|