DEPTH OF NAZI FALSEHOOD

Dominion, Volume 33, Issue 183, 30 April 1940, Page 7

DEPTH OF NAZI FALSEHOOD

Ribbentrop’s Fantasy

INVASION OF BELGIUM RECALLED • British Official Wireless.) LONDON, April 28. The Sunday Press reaction to Herr von Ribbentrop's speech is one of amazement at the extent and degree to which he not only departs from truth but with complete abandonment recites utter falsehoods in his account ot the events leading to the German invasion of Nor wav.

The "Sunday Times" writes: "The neutral world will approach with natural scepticism Herr von Ribbentrop’s fantastic attempts to demonstrate that Germany invaded Norway only in order to forestall a previouslyprepared invasion by Britain. He says that on April S, when Britain announced the mining of certain Norwegian waters, British forces were already being transported through the North Sea. The question naturally presents itself as to wliy. then, did they not get to Norway with or before the Germans. The answer is that ‘in the meantime part of the Britisli troop transports were attacked and destroyed by the German air force.’ "The fact is, as announced last week by the Britisli authorities, that front first to last not a single British transport has been successfully attacked. Herr von Ribbentrop has invented tfie destruction of non-existent transports because in no other way could he explain their non-existence.” Slandering Victim. Following the invasion of Denmark and Norway on April 9 by German forces the Allies prepared a counterstroke, but it was nearly a week before they could begin landing men iu Norway. They were only able to do so then because early in March they had collected an expeditionary force for Finland. "Following one of the shabbiest German traditions,” says the “Sunday Tinies,” “Herr von Ribbentrop tries to impute guilt to his victim, Norway, on the strength of the alleged capture of documents. This, it will be remembered, was exactly what Germany tried to do against Belgium in the last war. “Nobody but her own credulous people, and partisans, were convinced then, or will be now. In both cases an innocent country has been scrupulously neutral. In both cases Germany profited by its brutality to overrun and snatch, and in both she had the incredible meanness to bring a lying charge against her victims.” ' In this connexion the Swedish radio announced on Sunday morning that the Norwegian news agency had published a protest against the allegation pf Herr von Ribbentrop that Britain had negotiated with Norway for the acquisition of military bases in Norway. Since the outbreak of the war, it was asserted, Norway had made every endeavour to observe strict neutrality, and when Germany offered to help Norway against alleged aggression from Britain the King and bis Government and people refused, as acceptance would have been inconsistent with Norway’s neutrality. Norway’s protest states that, therefore, they are not surprised that Germany should now try to find an excuse for her own aggression.

Inconsistent Claims.

British observers watch with interest the contradictions in which the Nazi propaganda has become involved in its laboured efforts to justify the German invasion. One example of many is the affirmation in the preface to the bogus documents published by Herr von Ribbentrop on Saturday: “The Norwegian Government was ready from the beginning not only readily to accept any violation of its neutrality by England' but also to join hands with England.” If this were true —and, of course, it has no vestige of truth—how misinformed the Nazi Government must have been about the Government of a country which in their first explanations of their sudden treacherous aggression they represented they were taking “under Germany’s protection to prevent a hostile attack." The Nazi Government was not misinformed. The first explanations and the new explanations of the Nazi invasion of a neutral neighbour are in the British view alike merely calculated compositions of allegation and inference invented to serve the purpose _of the hour. It seems that the Nazi propaganda, lost in, admiration of its own versatility, lias now entirely forgotten the importance of consistency.