AIR BATHE OVER HOLLAND

Evening Star, Issue 23511, 27 February 1940, Page 7

AIR BATHE OVER HOLLAND

GERMAN BOMBER ATTACKS DUTCH PLANE STRONG PROTEST MADE THE HAGUE, February 26. A Dutch fighter plane became engaged with a German bomber in a machine-gun battle over North Brabant. The Germans damaged the Dutch machine before fleeing. Holland is protesting strongly that the German plane not only violated Dutch territory but opened fire on the Dutch plane, which was lawfully executing its duty. It was hit three times. The German escaped over Belgium. A second German plane over Central Holland drew anti-aircraft fire. . THE ALTMARCK AFFAIR NORWAY’S REPLY TO BRITAIN ARBITRATION PROPOSED OSLO, February 26. The Norwegian reply to Lord Halifax says that the Altmarck was stopped in territorial waters on February 14. Anti-aircraft guns had been taken down. A Norwegian torpedo boat later stopped the Altmarck and asked whether she had any persons aboard belonging to another belligerent navy or seamen who were subjects of another belligerent nation. The captain replied: “ No,” and he refused to allow a search when the Altmardk was stopped a third time, claiming immunity as a naval auxiliary. The Norwegian Government emphasises that the Altmarck had not called at Bergen or any Norwegian port, for which reason no question of the 24-hour limit arose. Neither The' Hague Convention, 1907, nor the Norwegian Neutrality Regulations, 1938, stipulated a time limit for passage. Britain had strongly maintained the right to passage for warships, notably in a letter on May 23, 1939. Norway understands the British feelings regarding the humanitarian aspects of the prisoners’ treatment, but a neutral must base its actions on positive stipulations in treaties or international law. , Norway proposes arbitration of a kind to be mutually agreed upon if Britain maintains her attitude.

M. KOHT’S STATEMENT GIVEN ADEQUATE PUBLICITY IN BRITAIN (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, February 26. (Received February 27, at 12.45 p.m.) The following official statement has been issued in London:— “ Britain’s attention has been drawn to a suggestion made by a Norwegian newspaper that M. Koht’s Altmarck statement on February 20 was intentionally given inadequate publicity in Britain. The facts are that no steps were taken by Britain to influence the newspapers in any way in regard to the prominence to be given to this statement, which was indeed published on February 21 in ‘ The Times ’ in a conspicuous position. In view of the tendentious comments which have been made on this point in certain quarters, the British Government finds itself constrained to state that M. Koht’s account of the communication received by Norway from Britain during the summer of 1939 was not accurate. According to ‘ The Times ’ report, M. Koht stated that in the summer of 1939 Britain asked Norway how the passage in the Norwegian neutrality regulations dealing with passage through territorial waters was to be understood, ‘ emphasising that warships must have the right to sail in Norwegian territorial waters as long as they desired without regard to the 24 hours’ limit.’ “ There is no foundation for such a statement. The only observation dealing with the right of passage in Britain’s communication was made by Norway on May 23, 1939, and is as fol-lows:-—While Britain does not deny that there may, in special circumstances, be a right to refuse belligerent warships entry into neutral territorial waters, she always maintains and must continue to maintain the existence of such right of entry for the purpose of innocent passage, and she is not aware of any case in which it has been refused by neutrals to belligerents for this purpose.’ This passage was quoted in a statement issued by the Norwegian Foreign Department on February 21. The Norwegian Minister now conveyed to Lord Halifax the message from M. Koht in which the latter spontaneously acknowledged that he had been mistaken in saying Britain had made any reference to any 24-hour limit whatever. It should, therefore, be clearly understood that the extract quoted above represents the only statement made to Norway by Britain on this point prior to the present incident.”

AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS THE CENSORSHIP POSITION MELBONRNE, February 27. (Received February 27, at 1.5 p.m.) The Federal Cabinet decided that representatives of the defence services in future will not be able to interfere with newspaper censorship unless they are officially asked! for advice. The paramount authority shall be vested in the Minister for Information and the chief publicity censor.